P. v. Cline
After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of a lewd and lascivious act on a child aged 14 or 15. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1).) In addition, although he was found not guilty of felony sexual battery with restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)), he was found guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (a)). He admitted one “strike†prior. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)
Defendant was sentenced to a total of six years in prison, along with the usual fines and fees.
Defendant now contends that the trial court erred by admitting a police officer’s testimony that it is common for there to be discrepancies in the stories given by child sexual abuse victims, because they are traumatized. We will reject this contention and affirm the conviction.
Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by limiting his presentence conduct credit to 20 percent. According to defendant, he is entitled to credit on a “two-for-two†basis under a version of Penal Code section 4019 that was enacted after the crimes were committed.
The People concede that the trial court erred by limiting defendant’s credit to 20 percent. According to the People, however, defendant is entitled to credit only on a “two-for-four†basis, because the “two-for-two†version of Penal Code section 4019 does not apply to crimes committed before its enactment.
We will hold that the “two-for-two†version of Penal Code section 4019 does not apply. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to some additional credit, but not as much as he is seeking.
Comments on P. v. Cline