People v. Brewer
192 Cal. App. 4th 457
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant, self-represented at trial, was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child and aggravated sexual assault on a child.
- Appellant challenged the trial court’s denial of a belated motion for appointment of counsel and the decision to exclude impeachment of the victim with a prior unsustained allegation.
- The unpublished portion of the opinion rejects these challenges and affirms the convictions.
- Appellant contends he was entitled to presentence conduct credit under section 4019, despite an indeterminate life term.
- The court conducted a de novo statutory interpretation and ultimately held appellant was entitled to presentence conduct credits amounting to 807 days (702 days actual custody plus 105 days conduct).
- The judgment was modified to reflect the additional presentence credit; an amended abstract of judgment was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel appointment denial | Appellant contends belated counsel motion was error. | Respondent contends no reversible error occurred. | No reversible error; challenge rejected. |
| Impeachment of victim with prior allegation | Appellant sought to impeach victim with prior unsustained allegation of molestation. | Respondent opposed introduction of that impeachment. | No reversible error; impeachment denial affirmed. |
| Presentence conduct credits for indeterminate life sentences | Appellant is entitled to presentence conduct credits under §4019 despite indeterminate life term. | Respondent argued ineligibility under statutory framework. | Appellant is entitled to presentence conduct credits; judgment modified to 807 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Philpot, 122 Cal.App.4th 893 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (presentence conduct credits available under §4019)
- People v. Duff, 50 Cal.4th 787 (Cal. 2010) (indeterminate sentence does not preclude conduct credits)
- In re Monigold, 139 Cal.App.3d 485 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (credit against enhancement term where applicable)
- People v. Rowland, 134 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (life sentence and conduct credits under older statutes)
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000) (statutory interpretation standards for credit provisions)
- Krug v. Maschmeier, 172 Cal.App.4th 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory interpretation in presentence credit context)