In re Mallard
7 Cal. App. 5th 1220
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2013 Mallard pled guilty to felony possession of concentrated cannabis and was placed on probation; he later violated probation and received an 8‑month consecutive felony term (plus 14 actual days and 2 days conduct credit, with conduct credit limited to 15% under Penal Code §2933.1 because of a separate violent felony).
- In 2014 Mallard was convicted of carjacking (a violent felony under §667.5(c)) and sentenced to 3 years in prison; the 8‑month marijuana term was ordered consecutive to that term.
- After serving the 3‑year prison term for carjacking, the court resentenced Mallard under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code §1170.18) in 2015, reclassifying the 8‑month felony marijuana conviction as a 240‑day misdemeanor to be served consecutively in county jail; the court did not change the previously imposed 15% conduct‑credit limitation.
- Mallard sought 50% conduct credits under Cal. Penal Code §4019 for the misdemeanor jail term and argued the 15% limitation of §2933.1 no longer applied after resentencing under Proposition 47; he also asserted federal and state equal protection violations.
- The trial court denied relief; Mallard appealed and filed a habeas petition. The Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause, received briefing, and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mallard) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2933.1’s 15% credit cap applies after a felony is later reclassified to a misdemeanor under Prop 47 | §2933.1 cannot limit credits for a reclassified misdemeanor; after Mallard finished his prison term, Prop 47 makes the offense a misdemeanor "for all purposes," so §4019 50% credits apply | §2933.1 applies because the 15% limitation attaches to the offender due to the qualifying violent felony (carjacking) and was properly applied to the contemporaneously imposed consecutive sentence, even after reclassification | The 15% limitation under §2933.1 still applies to Mallard’s consecutive misdemeanor jail term despite resentencing under Prop 47; petition denied |
| Whether Hamlin or other precedent requires a different result | Hamlin distinguished; reclassification after service changes applicability | Hamlin supports application of §2933.1 where a qualifying felony and other consecutive terms were imposed contemporaneously | Court follows Hamlin and finds it controlling; reclassification does not negate §2933.1 |
| Whether application of §2933.1 violates equal protection | Treating reclassified misdemeanants differently from pre‑Prop 47 misdemeanants violates equal protection | No disparate treatment: persons sentenced contemporaneously to a qualifying felony and other counts have long been subject to §2933.1; Mallard is similarly situated to that class | Equal protection claim fails |
| Whether rule of lenity or other statutory construction favors Mallard | Any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of Mallard | Statute is not ambiguous; §2933.1 applies and §1170.18 does not alter that application | Rule of lenity not triggered; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hamlin, 170 Cal.App.4th 1412 (applying §2933.1’s 15% cap to misdemeanor terms consecutive to a qualifying violent felony)
- People v. Buckhalter, 26 Cal.4th 20 (distinguishing presentence actual credits from post‑sentence prison credit schemes)
- In re Reeves, 35 Cal.4th 765 (discussing application of credit restrictions where consecutive terms combine violent and nonviolent offenses)
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (addressing Prop 47 resentencing consequences for juveniles; held reclassification affects collateral consequences tied to the original felony)
- People v. Valenti, 243 Cal.App.4th 1140 (explaining §2933.1 limits conduct and worktime credits for persons convicted of qualifying violent felonies)