People v. Brown
54 Cal. 4th 314
| Cal. | 2012Background
- California Penal Code §4019 provides conduct credits for good behavior in local custody since 1976.
- A 2009-2010 superseded version of §4019 increased the credit rate for eight months, operative January 25, 2010.
- Brown was convicted in 2007 and received 62 days of actual custody credit and 30 days of conduct credits; the §4019 rate at that time was two days’ credit for every four days in custody.
- The Court of Appeal awarded Brown additional credits retroactively after former §4019 took effect, covering time Brown had served in 2007.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether former §4019 applies retroactively and whether equal protection requires retroactive application, and to consider Estrada-based reasoning.
- The Court holds that former §4019 applies prospectively, and neither Estrada nor equal protection requires retroactive application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does former §4019 operate prospectively or retroactively? | Brown argues retroactive application is intended by the act's language and history. | People argues no retroactivity because no express retroactivity language and statutes favor prospective operation. | Former §4019 operates prospectively. |
| Does Estrada require retroactive application of the increased credit rate? | Estrada supports retroactive application when penalties are mitigated by a new law. | Estrada does not apply to a statute that increases credits for good behavior, which does not mitigate punishment for a specific crime. | Estrada does not require retroactive application. |
| Does equal protection require retroactive application of former §4019? | Applying prospectively results in unequal treatment of those who earned credits before the act. | Strick supports prospective application to preserve incentive effects; Sage and Kapperman are distinguishable. | Equal protection does not require retroactive application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1188 (Cal. 1988) (establishes default prospectivity absent express retroactivity)
- Myers v. Phillip Morris Companies, Inc., 28 Cal.4th 828 (Cal. 2002) (ambiguous retroactivity resolved as prospective)
- Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (contextual rule for retroactivity in mitigated penalties)
- In re Kapperman, 11 Cal.3d 542 (Cal. 1974) (equal protection and retroactivity of time-credit statutes)
- Strick, 148 Cal.App.3d 906 (Cal. App. 1983) (conduct credits must prospectively apply to incentivize behavior)
- Sage, 26 Cal.3d 498 (Cal. 1980) (equal protection for presentence credits to detainees)
- Doganiere, 86 Cal.App.3d 237 (Cal. App. 1978) (conduct credits retroactivity discussed in context)