In re Canady
| Decision Date | 25 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | C089363 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE Macanthony CANADY, On Habeas Corpus. |
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Assistant Attorney General, Sara R. Romano, Charles Chung, Deputy Attorney General, for Petitioner.
Michael Satris, Bolinas, and Allen G. Weinberg, Beverly Hills, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Macanthony Canady.
Duarte, J. Macanthony Canady petitioned the superior court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking early parole consideration under Proposition 57, also known as the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition). He asserted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (Department) regulation purporting to implement Proposition 57 was inconsistent with the Proposition. Specifically, the Department's regulation did not consider conduct credits inmates earned while incarcerated in the calculation of inmates’ nonviolent early parole eligible dates. The trial court agreed with Canady; it invalidated the Department's regulation as contradicting the stated purposes of the Proposition.
The Attorney General appeals from the trial court's order. He contends the order must be reversed because the Department's regulation is consistent with the plain language of the Proposition, authorized by the broad discretion granted to it by the Proposition, and consistent with the voters’ intent in passing the Proposition. We agree with the Attorney General and reverse the order.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS
Conduct Credits
The Legislature provides inmates incarcerated in state prison with the ability to reduce the length of their prison terms by earning conduct credits, including "worktime credit" and "program credit." ( Pen. Code, § 2930 et seq. )1 Typically, inmates may earn up to one day of worktime credit for each actual day of incarceration, or a 50 percent reduction in the inmate's sentence. (§ 2933, subd. (b).) The Department may award program reductions for participation in academic or vocational programs, vocational training, anger management and social life skills programs, substance abuse programs, and others. (§ 2933.05, subds. (a), (c).) The Legislature limits such conduct credits earned by inmates who have been previously convicted of a serious or violent felony to no more than one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment. (§ 1170.12, subd. (a)(5).) The credits are a privilege, not a right, and they may be "denied or lost" by committing various acts of misconduct while incarcerated. (§§ 2932, 2933, subds. (a), (c), 2933.05, subd. (b).)
The Legislature also requires that individuals convicted of felonies or misdemeanors are awarded credit for time spent in custody before sentencing. (§ 2900.5.) Inmates may earn credits against their sentences both for actual days spent in custody and additional credits based on their work and good conduct during presentence custody. (§§ 2900.5, subd. (a), 4019.) It is the trial court's duty to determine the dates of custody and the total number of days to be credited pursuant to section 2900.5. (§ 2900.5, subd. (d).)
When an inmate sentenced to a determinate term has served that term, or at the expiration of the "term reduced pursuant to Section ... 2933 [worktime credit], if applicable, the inmate shall be released on parole." (§ 3000, subd. (b)(2)(B).)
In November 2016 California voters passed Proposition 57. The initiative added section 32 to article I of the California Constitution which, among other things, provides for early parole consideration for inmates serving prison sentences for nonviolent offenses.2 The added section (Amendment) provides:
Section 2 of Proposition 57 states its (uncodified) purposes, as relevant here: "1. Protect and enhance public safety. [¶] 2. Save money by reducing wasteful spending on prisons. [¶] 3. Prevent federal courts from indiscriminately releasing prisoners.
[¶] 4. Stop the revolving door of crime by emphasizing rehabilitation, especially for juveniles." (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop. 57, § 2, p. 141.)
Department Regulations
Following the implementation of emergency regulations, the Department issued final regulations purporting to implement the Amendment. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, former §§ 3490, 3491, Register 2018, No. 18 (May 1, 2018).)3 The Department defined the "full term" as used in article I, section 32, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(1)(A) as "the actual number of days, months, and years imposed by the sentencing court for the inmate's primary offense, not including any sentencing credits." (Tit. 15, § 3490, subd. (e).) The Department defined inmates’ "nonviolent parole eligible" date as: "the date on which a nonviolent offender who is eligible for parole consideration under [Title 15,] section 3491 has served the full term of his or her primary offense, less any actual days served prior to sentencing as ordered by the court under section 2900.5 of the Penal Code and any actual days served in custody between sentencing and the date the inmate is received by the department." (Id. , § 3490, subd. (f).)
The Department recognized that the sentencing court awards presentence credits, which are applied to reduce an inmate's aggregate sentence. (Tit. 15, §§ 3043.1, 3371.1, subd. (c)(1)(A).) The Department awards postsentence credit for actual days and good conduct days spent in custody after sentencing but before an inmate is formally received by the Department. (Id. , § 3371.1, subds. (c)(1)(B)-(C).) The Department also awards credits to inmates consistent with statutory requirements. (Id., § 3043 et seq.) In the case of a determinately sentenced inmate, the Department's regulations require applying conduct credits to advance an inmate's release date but not to calculating the inmate's early parole eligible date. (Id. , §§ 3043, subd. (a), 3043.2, subd. (b), 3490, subd. (f).)
Petitioner's Incarceration Background
Petitioner was convicted of driving under the influence with priors. ( Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b).) On August 10, 2017, he was sentenced to four years in prison, which was double the statutory midterm of two years due to his previous conviction for a serious or violent felony. The sentencing court awarded petitioner presentence credit for 136 days, including 68 actual days spent in custody and 68 days of local conduct credit. ( §§ 2900.5, subd. (d), 4019 ).
On September 6, petitioner was received by the Department and formally began his four-year term. The Department recognized that the court had awarded petitioner 136 days of presentence credit, and it awarded him an additional 26 days actual and 13 days conduct credit for his time served following sentencing but before being received by the Department. While incarcerated, the Department continued to award petitioner conduct credits to reduce the length of his total sentence. However, pursuant to its regulations, the Department did not apply petitioner's conduct credits toward the calculation of his nonviolent early parole eligible date. The Department calculated petitioner's early parole eligible date as June 4, 2019, which was two years from the date petitioner was received by the Department less the 94 actual days--68 presentence days and 26 postsentence days--petitioner spent in custody before being received by the Department.
Habeas Corpus Proceedings
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court challenging the Department's calculation of his nonviolent parole eligible date on the grounds that the Department's calculation denied him the benefit of his conduct credits. The petition was transferred to the Sacramento Superior Court, which issued an order to show cause; the Department filed a return, and petitioner filed a traverse.
The trial court granted the habeas petition, concluding Proposition 57 requires the Department to apply conduct credits when calculating an inmate's early parole eligible date. The court ruled Title 15, section 3490, subdivision (f) is invalid as contrary to the voters’ intent in passing Proposition 57 to the extent it does not require the application of conduct credits towards the inmate's nonviolent parole eligible date. It directed the Department and the Board of Parole Hearings to stop enforcing Title 15, section 3490, subdivision (f), to promulgate emergency regulations consistent with its ruling, and to recalculate petitioner's parole eligible date.
The Department recalculated petitioner's early parole eligible date to June 20, 2018.4 The trial court denied the Department's request to stay enforcement of the remaining portion of its order pending appeal. The Department timely appealed the court's order.
The Department filed a petition for writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial