238 Cal. App. 4th 1354
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Whitaker pled guilty (Feb 2013) to pandering and pimping with gang and prior enhancements; court suspended a 13-year prison sentence and granted 3 years' probation.
- In Dec 2013 Whitaker committed new offenses (altered checks); probation was revoked and he pled guilty to one count (§ 530.5) in exchange for 8 months in prison; the original 13-year sentence was ordered executed, yielding a combined term of 13 years 8 months.
- At sentencing Whitaker had served 327 days in actual custody before sentence.
- The trial court awarded a total of 653 presentence credits: 327 actual custody days + 326 conduct credits (credited under Penal Code §4019 as “PC 4019 2/2”).
- Whitaker appealed only the conduct-credit calculation, arguing he should receive 327 days of conduct credit (one-for-one), not 326 under the two-for-two formula.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to calculate presentence conduct credits under Penal Code §4019(f) | People: two-for-two (current statutory text and precedent apply) | Whitaker: one-for-one — each day in custody yields one conduct day (327 credits) based on legislative changes | Court held §4019(f) authorizes credits in 4-day increments under the two-for-two formula; Whitaker gets 326 conduct days, judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (California Supreme Court) (describing §4019 conduct credit framework)
- People v. King, 3 Cal.App.4th 882 (Cal. Ct. App.) (credits awarded only in four-day increments; no credit for remainder)
- People v. Smith, 211 Cal.App.3d 523 (Cal. Ct. App.) (same interpretation of former six-for-four formula)
- In re Marquez, 30 Cal.4th 14 (California Supreme Court) (approved the increment-based calculation method)
- People v. Hul, 213 Cal.App.4th 182 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussing temporary one-for-one credits under former §2933(e))