People v. Verba
210 Cal. App. 4th 991
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Verba committed his crime in April 2010; presentence credits were calculated under 4019(b),(c) as amended by SB 76.
- SB 76 increased conduct credits to 2 days for every 2 days in custody; effective Sep 2010, but operative for crimes on/after Oct 1, 2011.
- An October 1 amendment to 4019(h) made the higher credit only applicable to crimes committed on or after Oct 1, 2011.
- Verba received the lower pre-Oct 1 level of conduct credits since his crime preceded Oct 1, 2011.
- Verba challenged the constitutionality of the Oct 1 operative date under equal protection and argued it should apply to all inmates as of the statute’s effective date.
- The trial court and appellate court ultimately upheld the Oct 1 operative date, affirming the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Sec. 4019(h) violate equal protection? | Verba argues two groups are similarly situated but receive different credits. | State asserts rational basis for prospective application and distinct purposes of the law. | No equal protection violation; rational basis supports prospective application. |
| Is the challenge barred by Section 1237.1? | Verba challenges the constitutionality, not the credit calculation error at sentencing. | Section 1237.1 bars appeals on credit calculation errors absent trial-stage claim. | Section 1237.1 does not bar this challenge. |
| Does the operative date (Oct 1, 2011) have a rational basis? | Argues punitive/time-based classifications should apply to all inmates retroactively. | Legislature rationally chose prospective application to manage fiscal impact and deterrence. | Rational bases exist for prospective operation date. |
| Are inmates before/after Oct 1, 2011 similarly situated for credit purposes? | They committed the same offenses but receive different credits based on timing. | The purpose of increased credits is not to modify pre-October conduct but to affect future incentives and fiscal policy. | Yes, they are similarly situated for credit purposes; but rational basis supports the distinction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 2002) (tests equal protection when comparing similarly situated groups)
- In re Kapperman, 11 Cal.3d 542 (Cal. 1974) (rational basis review for statute classifications)
- Preston v. State Bd. of Equalization, 25 Cal.4th 197 (Cal. 2001) (distinction between effective and operative dates; rational basis review)
- People v. Lara, 54 Cal.4th 896 (Cal. 2012) (legislation to save state money; context for credits under 4019)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003) (beginning of statutory changes and rational basis for timing)
- People v. Lynch, 209 Cal.App.4th 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (distinction between effective vs. operative dates; retroactivity considerations)
- People v. Garcia, 209 Cal.App.4th 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (back-and-forth changes in conduct credits; statutory history)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (purpose of conduct credits and incentives; relevant to equal protection)
- In re Strick, 148 Cal.App.3d 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (punitive/incentive analysis for custody credit)