Filed 5/9/05
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
S110887
In re JAMES GREEBE REEVES
Ct.App.
4/3
G028823
on
Habeas
Corpus.
) Orange
County
____________________________________) Super. Ct. No. M9108
Penal Code section 29331 offers state prisoners who participate in
qualifying work, training and educational programs the privilege of earning
“worktime credit” (id., subd. (a)) against their sentences. Ordinarily, the
maximum rate at which a prisoner may earn worktime credit is 50 percent, or one
day’s credit for each day’s participation.2 Other statutes make worktime credit
unavailable, or available only at a reduced rate, to prisoners convicted of
designated offenses. (E.g., §§ 2933.1 [violent offenses], 2933.2 [murder].) This
case concerns section 2933.1, subdivision (a),3 which provides that “any person
who is convicted of a felony offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 [i.e.,
a violent offense] shall accrue no more than 15 percent of worktime credit, as
defined in Section 2933.”4
1
All further citations to statutes are to the Penal Code, except as noted.
2
Prisoners assigned to conservation camps may earn two days’ worktime
credit for each day’s service. (§ 2933.3.)
3
Hereafter section 2933.1(a).
4
Section 2933.1(a) uses the term “worktime credit” to refer to the type of
postsentence credit created, and expressly given that name, by section 2933. This
opinion uses the term only in that statutory sense. To avoid confusion, we note the
(footnote continued on next page)
1
The question before us is whether section 2933.1(a) restricts petitioner’s
ability to earn worktime credit against a concurrent sentence for a nonviolent
offense. Petitioner has completed a five-year term for the violent offense that
made the section applicable and is now serving the remainder of a concurrent 10-
year term for a nonviolent offense. We hold that section 2933.1(a) limited to 15
percent the rate at which petitioner could earn worktime credit as long as he was
serving the term for the violent offense, even though the concurrently punished
nonviolent offense would not by itself have caused the section to apply; but once
petitioner completed the term for the violent offense he became prospectively
eligible to earn credit at a rate unrestricted by the section. We therefore reject both
the People’s harsher and petitioner’s more lenient interpretations of the section.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 18, 1999, following a jury trial, the Orange County Superior
Court sentenced petitioner to 10 years in state prison for the offense of possessing
a controlled substance for sale, plus enhancements.5 In a separate proceeding on
April 6, 1999, pursuant to a guilty plea, a different judge of the same court
(footnote continued from previous page)
term “worktime credit” is sometimes used in a nonstatutory sense to refer to
presentence credit awarded for willingness to perform assigned labor (§ 4019,
subd. (b)), in order to distinguish it from presentence credit awarded for
compliance with rules and regulations (id., subd. (c)). (E.g., People v. Cooper
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 38, 40.) Both forms of presentence credit are also sometimes
referred to as “conduct credit.” (E.g., ibid.)
5
The 10-year sentence represents the middle term of two years for
possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; see
§ 18), two years for committing that felony for the benefit of a criminal street gang
(§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), three years for having served three prior prison terms
(§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and three years for having committed a prior drug-related
offense (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (b)).
2
sentenced petitioner to five years for the offense of assault with a deadly weapon
other than a firearm, plus an enhancement.6 Because the assault caused great
bodily injury, it triggered the 15 percent credit limitation of section 2933.1(a) as a
“violent felony” described in section 667.5, subdivision (c). The judge at the
second sentencing proceeding did not state that the two sentences would run
consecutively; hence, the Penal Code made them concurrent by operation of law.7
(§ 669, 2d par.)
Petitioner was committed to state prison in 1999. At that time, the
Department of Corrections (Department) calculated his release date as October 19,
2006. The Department based this decision on its understanding that section
2933.1(a) applied fully to both of petitioner’s sentences so that he would accrue
only 15 percent worktime credit for the entire duration of his prison commitment,
even after completing the shorter, five-year sentence for the violent felony.
Petitioner challenged the Department’s decision in a petition for habeas corpus.
The superior court, reasoning that section 2933.1(a) had no effect on petitioner’s
sentence for the nonviolent offense, granted the writ and ordered the Department
to recalculate petitioner’s release date. The Court of Appeal affirmed, and we
granted review.
II. DISCUSSION
Our role in construing section 2933.1(a), as with any statute, is to ascertain
the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. We accomplish
this task if possible by giving the words of the statute their usual, ordinary
6
The five-year sentence represents the lower term of two years for assault
with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) plus three years for
causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.7).
7
The subsequently prepared minute order and abstract of judgment reflect
the court’s implicit decision to sentence concurrently.
3
meanings. (People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1276.) This case turns on the
meaning of the phrase, “any person who is convicted of a [violent] felony offense
. . . .” (§ 2933.1(a).) 8 As will appear, the effort to apply this seemingly plain
language to the case at hand reveals ambiguities the Legislature apparently did not
foresee.
The People argue that petitioner “is convicted” of a violent felony offense
for purposes of calculating worktime credit because he served a term for a violent
offense during his current prison commitment, even though he has completed that
term and would be eligible for release, were it not for the time remaining on his
longer concurrent sentence for a nonviolent offense. Petitioner, echoing the lower
courts’ conclusions, contends that section 2933.1(a) has never restricted his ability
to earn worktime credit against the longer concurrent sentence because, for
purposes of that sentence, he is not convicted of a violent felony offense. Other
8
Section 2933.1 provides in full:
“(a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person who is convicted of a
felony offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 shall accrue no more than
15 percent of worktime credit, as defined in Section 2933.
“(b) The 15-percent limitation provided in subdivision (a) shall apply
whether the defendant is sentenced under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section
1170) of Title 7 of Part 2 or sentenced under some other law. However, nothing in
subdivision (a) shall affect the requirement of any statute that the defendant serve
a specified period of time prior to minimum parole eligibility, nor shall any
offender otherwise statutorily ineligible for credit be eligible for credit pursuant to
this section.
“(c) Notwithstanding Section 4019 or any other provision of law, the
maximum credit that may be earned against a period of confinement in, or
commitment to, a county jail, industrial farm, or road camp, or a city jail,
industrial farm, or road camp, following arrest and prior to placement in the
custody of the Director of Corrections, shall not exceed 15 percent of the actual
period of confinement for any person specified in subdivision (a).
“(d) This section shall only apply to offenses listed in subdivision (a) that
are committed on or after the date on which this section becomes operative.”
4
possible interpretations of the section also exist, as we shall explain. Accordingly,
the conclusion that section 2933.1(a) is ambiguous, at least as applied to the facts
of this case, seems inescapable. Indeed, petitioner expressly argues the statute is
ambiguous, and the Attorney General conceded the point during oral argument.
Because section 2933.1(a) is ambiguous, we may look beyond its language
to other evidence that helps to elucidate the Legislature’s purpose, such as the
statute’s background and history. (People v. Canty, supra, 32 Cal.4th 1266,
1277.) The purpose that motivated the section’s enactment, however, is clear only
in the broadest terms: The Legislature wished to protect the public by delaying the
release of prisoners convicted of violent offenses. (Stats. 1994, ch. 713, § 2,
p. 3448 [declaration of urgency].) The general observation that a law was
intended to delay release does not, in the face of ambiguous statutory language,
answer the specific, practical questions of how long and under what circumstances
release is to be delayed. Neither does the legislative history reveal any specific
consideration of the problem of applying credits to concurrent sentences. Under
these circumstances, lacking definitive guidance in the statute’s language or
history, “our aim [must be] to provide . . . a construction [of the statute] which is
faithful to its language, which produces fair and reasonable results in a majority of
cases, and which can be readily understood and applied by trial courts.” (In re
Joyner (1989) 48 Cal.3d 487, 495.) This is the practical approach to identifying
legislative intent that we have followed in other cases addressing unforeseen
difficulties in the implementation of California’s statutory credit system. (Ibid.;
see also People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 28-29; People v. Bruner
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1194-1195.)9
9
When a statute is capable of more than one construction, “ ‘[w]e must
. . . give the provision a reasonable and commonsense interpretation consistent
(footnote continued on next page)
5
In searching for a reasonable construction of section 2933.1(a), we may at
the outset reject a construction that, while arguably consistent with the section’s
language, is almost certainly not what the Legislature intended. The phrase, “any
person who is convicted of a [violent] felony offense” (§ 2933.1(a)), might
conceivably refer simply to a point of historical fact. Read in this way, the statute
would disqualify, for all time, any person who has ever been convicted of a violent
offense from earning more than 15 percent worktime credit. Neither the People
nor petitioner endorses this reading of the section. We may reasonably reject it
because the Legislature typically uses different language when it intends to impose
a continuing disability based on criminal history. Credit restrictions,
enhancements and alternative sentencing schemes based on criminal history
usually employ the past perfect tense (“has been convicted” or “previously has
been convicted”) rather than the present tense (“is convicted”). (E.g., §§ 667,
subds. (a)(1) & (b), 667.51, subd. (d), 667.6, subd. (a), 667.71, subd. (a), 2933.5,
subd. (a)(1).) Similarly, section 2933.5 withholds all worktime credits from a
“person who is convicted” and also “previously has been convicted two or more
times” of a designated felony. (Id., subd. (a)(1), italics added.) We have relied on
this observation about the Legislature’s practice to resolve other statutory
ambiguities, as when we determined that a statute referred to current rather than
past convictions in making any “person convicted of murder, rape or any other
(footnote continued from previous page)
with the apparent purpose and intention of the lawmakers, practical rather than
technical in nature, which upon application will result in wise policy rather than
mischief or absurdity.’ ” (Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 744,
quoting Marshall M. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 48, 55.)
6
serious felony” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1732.5) ineligible for commitment to the
Youth Authority. (People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008-1010.)
We may also reasonably reject the parties’ interpretations of section
2933.1(a). Both create unacceptable tension with the statutory language, and
neither is entirely fair and reasonable.
As mentioned, the People argue that section 2933.1(a) restricts petitioner’s
ability to earn worktime credit against his concurrent term for the nonviolent
offense even though he has completed his term for the violent offense that caused
section 2933.1(a) to apply. The People reject petitioner’s and the lower courts’
view that the section applies on an offense-by-offense basis. In the People’s view,
section 2933.1(a) applies to offenders rather than to offenses, and applies to a
designated offender’s entire period of confinement, provided the offender at some
point during that period serves time for a violent offense. An offender’s time in
prison, the People argue, must for purposes of credits be regarded as “a single,
unitary period of confinement,” regardless of “whether that period of confinement
is based upon multiple convictions or separate crimes.” Reading section 2933.1(a)
in this way, petitioner’s total time in state prison would be eight years and six
months, which represents the longer, 10-year concurrent term for a nonviolent
offense minus 15 percent worktime credit.
We agree with the People’s interpretation of section 2933.1(a) in some
respects but not in others. We may confidently assume that an offender serving a
sentence that combines consecutive terms for violent and nonviolent offenses is
subject to the credit restriction imposed by section 2933.1(a) for the entire
sentence. Under the Determinate Sentencing Act (§ 1170 et seq.), multiple
consecutive determinate terms must be combined into a single, “aggregate term of
imprisonment for all [such] convictions” (§ 1170.1, subd. (a)) that merges all
terms to be served consecutively and complies with the rules for calculating
7
aggregate terms (e.g., one-third the base term for subordinate terms and specific
enhancements applicable to subordinate terms (ibid.)), whether or not the
consecutive terms arose from the same or different proceedings (ibid.); see also
§ 669, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.452). To suggest that a prisoner serving an
aggregate term serves the component terms and enhancements in any particular
sequence would be a meaningless abstraction. For this reason, when an aggregate
term includes time for a violent offense, at any point during that term the prisoner
literally “is convicted of a [violent] felony offense” (§ 2933.1(a)) and actually is
serving time for that offense. Accordingly, a restriction on credits applicable to
“any person who is convicted of a [violent] felony offense” (ibid.) logically
applies throughout the aggregate term.
The People’s effort to apply the same logic to concurrent terms is not
convincing. A court that decides to run terms consecutively must create a new,
“aggregate term of imprisonment” (§ 1170.1, subd. (a)) into which all the
consecutive terms merge, but no principle of California law merges concurrent
terms into a single aggregate term. Section 1170.1, which articulates the statutory
mandate and authority for creating aggregate consecutive terms, says nothing
about concurrent terms. Furthermore, a later sentencing court may not change a
prior sentencing court’s discretionary decision to make a particular term
concurrent rather than consecutive. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.452(3).)10 The
10
The Penal Code, by use of the plural form “terms,” implicitly recognizes
that a prisoner can have multiple terms that do not merge. For example, “[t]he
Department of Corrections shall advise the court pronouncing the second or other
subsequent judgment of the existence of all prior judgments against the defendant,
the terms of imprisonment upon which have not been completely served.” (§ 669,
3d par., italics added.) Moreover, when a court sentences without knowledge of
existing terms, it may within 60 days thereafter “determine how the term of
imprisonment upon the second or other subsequent judgment shall run with
(footnote continued on next page)
8
Determinate Sentencing Law, in short, does not support the People’s argument
that all of an inmate’s overlapping terms necessarily constitute a single, unified
term of confinement for purposes of worktime credit.
Neither do the other statutes on which the People rely support their
argument. Section 667.5, subdivision (g), defines “prior separate prison term for
purposes of this section” (italics added) as including both concurrent and
consecutive terms. But the section has nothing to do with credits; its purpose is to
avoid enhancing a sentence for a “prior separate prison term” (§ 667.5, subd. (a))
more than once for a single prior stay in prison. Section 2933, the statute
authorizing worktime credits, begins by stating the Legislature’s intent that
persons convicted and sentenced under the Determinate Sentencing Act “serve the
entire sentence imposed by the court, except for a reduction in the time served” for
performance in qualified work programs. (Id., subd. (a).) But the section does not
provide that separate, concurrent sentences merge for purposes of credits. Neither
does section 2900, subdivision (a), which simply provides that “[t]he term of
imprisonment fixed by the judgment . . . commences to run only upon the actual
delivery of the defendant into the custody of the Department of Corrections
. . . .”11
(footnote continued from previous page)
reference to the prior incompleted [sic] term or terms of imprisonment.” (Id., 2d
par., italics added.)
11
The dissent, relying on older decisions interpreting the specific language of
sentencing schemes that have long since been repealed, unsuccessfully attempts to
construct a nonstatutory general rule to the effect that all of a prisoner’s terms
merge for purposes of credits. (See dis. opn. of Chin, J., post, at pp. 4-6, citing In
re Cowen (1946) 27 Cal.2d 637, In re Albori (1933) 218 Cal. 34, Ex Parte Dalton
(1875) 49 Cal. 463.) None of the cited cases offers any assistance in interpreting
the different language of section 2933.1(a) or the present Determinate Sentencing
(footnote continued on next page)
9
The People also attempt to derive their proposed rule that all of a prisoner’s
overlapping terms must, for purposes of credits, be viewed as a single, unitary
period of confinement from the language of section 2933.1. The specific language
on which the People rely, however, appears not in subdivision (a) but in
subdivision (c), and it concerns not postsentence worktime credits under section
2933 but presentence credits under section 4019. Section 2933.1, subdivision
(c),12 provides that “the maximum credit that may be earned against a period of
confinement in, or commitment to, a county jail [or other local facility] following
arrest and prior to placement in the custody of the Director of Corrections, shall
not exceed 15 percent of the actual period of confinement for any person specified
in subdivision (a).” (Italics added.) Thus, a person who spends time in
presentence (including pretrial) confinement and is eventually convicted of a
violent offense may earn, as a credit against his prison sentence, no more than 15
percent of the actual time he spent in presentence confinement, regardless of the
offenses for which he was charged. This was the holding of People v. Ramos
(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810, 815-817 (Ramos). All other published decisions
addressing the same issue about presentence credits have followed Ramos.
(footnote continued from previous page)
Act (§ 1170 et seq.). Neither can any guidance be found in more recent decisions
using the term “aggregate sentence” in a nonstatutory, colloquial sense as
including concurrent terms while not addressing the question before us. (See dis.
opn. of Chin, J., post, at pp. 6-7, fn. 3, citing People v. Williams (2004) 34 Cal.4th
397, 401, People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798, 801, People v. Bruce G.
(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1236, People v. Cole (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1672,
1674, and People v. Parrott (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1119, 1122.)
12
Hereafter section 2933.1(c).
10
(People v. Duran (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 267, 270; People v. Aguirre (1997) 56
Cal.App.4th 1135, 1141; People v. Palacios (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 252, 255-256.)
The People insist that Ramos, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th 810, disposes of the
different issue before us. It does not. The defendant in Ramos, after a period of
presentence confinement, was convicted of a variety of violent and nonviolent
offenses and sentenced to a single, aggregate term of 22 years, which included
among other things an eight-month consecutive term for a nonviolent offense.
(Id., at p. 814.) The defendant argued that section 2933.1(c) did not affect his
ability to earn credit under section 4019 for presentence custody attributable to his
nonviolent offenses. Assuming the correctness of that argument, the defendant
further contended that he had accrued presentence credit at two different rates: the
reduced rate of 15 percent against the portion of his presentence confinement
attributable to the violent offense, and at a higher rate (see § 4019, subd. (f))
against the portion attributable to the nonviolent offense. (Ramos, at p. 817.) The
court reasonably rejected these arguments because “the language of section 2933.1
[did] not support Ramos’ position.” (Ramos, at p. 817.) Section 2933.1, the court
reasoned, “limits to 15 percent the maximum number of conduct credits[13]
available to ‘any person who is convicted of a felony offense listed in Section
667.5.’ That is, by its terms, section 2933.1 applies to the offender not to the
offense and so limits a violent felon’s conduct credits irrespective of whether or
not all his or her offenses come within section 667.5.” (Ramos, supra, at p. 817,
quoting § 2933.1(a).)
The Ramos court’s statement that “section 2933.1 applies to the offender
not to the offense” (Ramos, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th 810, 817) makes sense in the
13
That is, pretrial credits under section 4019. See page 1, footnote 4, ante.
11
context in which the court spoke—that of presentence credits authorized by
section 4019 and limited by section 2933.1(c). A period of presentence
confinement is indivisibly attributable to all of the offenses with which the
prisoner is charged and of which he is eventually convicted. The defendant’s
argument in Ramos would have required the court to parse such a single, unitary
period of presentence confinement into hypothetical, overlapping terms eligible to
earn credit at different rates. Such a result finds no support in the language of
subdivision (c), which limits the credits a prisoner may earn against an “actual
period of confinement” (§ 2933.1(c), italics added) following arrest and before
sentencing. The People here, departing from the actual holding of Ramos, would
read subdivision (c) as if it qualified subdivision (a) by defining all of a prisoner’s
postsentence time in state prison as a single “actual period of confinement”
(§ 2933.1(c)) for purposes of postsentence worktime credit. Although subdivision
(c) does refer to subdivision (a),14 it does so “only to clarify the intended target
population” of subdivision (c). (People v. Aguirre, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 1135,
1140.) In other words, subdivision (c) explains that its limitation on presentence
credit takes effect only when a person who has served “an actual period of
[presentence] confinement” (§ 2933.1(c)) becomes, by subsequent conviction of a
violent offense in a proceeding to which the presentence custody is attributable, a
“person specified in subdivision (a)” (§ 2933.1(c), italics added), namely, a
“person who is convicted of a [violent] felony offense” (§ 2933.1(a)). Subdivision
14
“Notwithstanding Section 4019 [which authorizes presentence credits] or
any other provision of law, the maximum credit that may be earned against a
period of confinement in, or commitment to, a county jail [or other local facility]
following arrest and prior to placement in the custody of the Director of
Corrections, shall not exceed 15 percent of the actual period of confinement for
any person specified in subdivision (a).” (§ 2933.1(c), italics added.)
12
(c) says nothing at all about postsentence credit. Thus, to read subdivision (c) as
limiting postsentence credits or qualifying subdivision (a), as the People here
would read it, finds no support in the relevant statutory language.
The People attempt to find evidence of legislative intent supporting their
position in a letter written by Assemblyman Richard Katz, who sponsored the bill
that became section 2933.1 (Assem. Bill No. 2716 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.)), to the
Clerk of the Assembly and printed by unanimous consent in the Assembly Journal
after both houses of the Legislature had passed the bill. But the letter itself is
ambiguous. In it, the author states: “This letter is to clarify my intent, and that of
the Legislature, in writing and enacting AB 2716 . . . to ensure that the maximum
reduction [for worktime credits] . . . from a defendant’s term of imprisonment
imposed as a result of a violent felony . . . be fifteen percent. [¶] In enacting
Penal Code section 2933.1, it is my intent and that of the Legislature to ensure that
the maximum fifteen percent reduction apply to a defendant’s entire term of
imprisonment, so long as the defendant has been convicted of at least one violent
felony . . . .” (Assemblyman Richard Katz, letter to Dotson Wilson, Chief Clerk
of Assem., August 31, 1994, printed at 6 Assem. J. (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.)
p. 9353.) The letter’s first sentence, which refers to “a defendant’s term of
imprisonment imposed as a result of a violent felony” (ibid., italics added), might
be read as supporting petitioner’s argument that section 2933.1(a) applies on an
offense-by-offense basis. The letter’s second sentence, which refers to an “entire
term” (Assemblyman Richard Katz, letter to Dotson Wilson, supra, italics added),
has two possible meanings: it could mean that the restriction applies to a
prisoner’s entire term for a violent offense, even if the term is an aggregate term
(see § 1170.1, subd. (a)) combining consecutive terms for both violent and
13
nonviolent offenses; 15 or, using the word “term” in a less formally correct sense,
it could refer to a prisoner’s entire period of confinement in state prison, as the
People here argue. The letter offers no basis for resolving the ambiguity; nor does
it specifically address the question of whether the credit restriction proposed in the
bill would apply to a separate, concurrent term for a nonviolent offense.
Of no more assistance in the present case is Governor Wilson’s message to
the Assembly upon signing the bill that became section 2933.1. The Governor
wrote that the “bill would limit to 15% the credit inmates in state prison or local
custody could earn to reduce their prison sentences for violent crimes.”
(Governor’s message to Assem. on Assem. Bill No. 2716 (Sept. 21, 1994) 6
Assem. J. (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) p. 9490.) This brief, general statement, which
does not specifically address the treatment of concurrent terms, is consistent with
both the People’s and petitioner’s interpretations of section 2933.1.
The People’s reading of section 2933.1(a) creates tension with the statutory
language in this way: Because petitioner has already served the term for the
violent offense that caused the section to apply, the statement that he “is convicted
15
Indeed, to say precisely this may well have been the author’s intention.
The concern had been expressed that the proposed legislation might require the
Department of Corrections to calculate separate rates of credit accrual for “violent
offenses running consecutively to non-violent offenses”—something the
Department’s computer system was apparently unable to do and would therefore
need to have been done manually. (Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 2716
(1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) Aug. 30, 1994, p. 3.) The same concern had been raised
by the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association while the original
version of the bill that became section 2933.1 (Assem. Bill No. 113 (1993-1994
Reg. Sess.); see p. 19, fn. 18, post) was pending in the Legislature. (Executive
Director Susan Cohen, Cal. Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn., letter to
Assemblyman Richard Katz, Apr. 15, 1993.)
We grant the People’s request for judicial notice of the legislative history of
section 2933.1.
14
of a [violent] felony offense” (ibid.) is true only as a matter of historical fact, i.e.,
he was once convicted of a violent offense. But we have already rejected, as
contrary to the Legislature’s probable intent, the argument that section 2933.1(a)
treats a conviction for a violent offense as a continuing disability that restricts an
offender’s ability to earn worktime credits even after he has served his sentence
for that offense. Except in this inapplicable sense, to say that petitioner at the
present time “is convicted” (ibid.) of a violent offense is not correct. Today, his
conviction for the violent offense gives the Department no claim to his physical
custody; but for the time remaining on the separate, concurrent term for the
nonviolent offense, he would be entitled to release. For the same reason, given the
statute’s ambiguity, the People’s interpretation of section 2933.1(a) is not entirely
fair (to petitioner or others in his situation) or reasonable. (People v. Buckhalter,
supra, 26 Cal.4th 20, 28-29; People v. Bruner, supra, 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1194-1195;
In re Joyner, supra, 48 Cal.3d 487, 495.)16
16
At oral argument, the People questioned whether our interpretation of
section 2933.1(a) could readily be applied by the Department. We have no reason
to doubt that it can be. The Department calculates a prisoner’s earliest possible
release date (EPRD), adjusted for worktime credit, by reference to a “controlling
term.” (Cal. Dept. of Corrections, Operations Manual (2000) § 73030.8.13.)
Petitioner’s shorter concurrent term for the violent offense properly controlled the
rate at which he accrued worktime credit only until he completed that term.
Thereafter, the longer concurrent term for the nonviolent offense—the term which
alone gave the Department a valid claim to petitioner’s continuing physical
custody—properly controlled his future ability to earn worktime credit. The
Department’s rules for calculating worktime credit already provide that a
prisoner’s “EPRD is projected each time . . . there is a change in credit earning
status.” (Ibid.) Under our interpretation of section 2933.1(a), the expiration of a
term for a violent offense, leaving only a concurrent term for a nonviolent offense,
constitutes a change in credit earning status.
The dissent, noting that the Department’s current practice in awarding
worktime credit differs from our conclusion about how credit should be awarded,
questions on that basis whether the Department can readily apply our holding.
(footnote continued on next page)
15
Petitioner’s own interpretation of section 2933.1(a) also creates tension
with the statutory language and is likewise neither fair nor reasonable. Following
the lower courts, petitioner interprets section 2933.1(a) as having no effect
whatsoever on his concurrent sentence for the nonviolent offense. As a result,
petitioner continues, he has from the time he entered prison accrued credit at two
different rates—15 percent on the term for the violent offense and 50 percent on
the term for the nonviolent offense. Reading section 2933.1(a) in this way,
petitioner’s total time in custody would be five years, which represents the 10-year
term for a nonviolent offense minus 50 percent credit. Petitioner concedes, as he
must, that section 2933.1(a) applies to the term for the violent offense, but he
denies the section has any practical impact on the duration of his commitment to
state prison. This is because he has already served the credit-adjusted term for his
violent felony offense (four years and three months, or five years minus 15 percent
credit) and because the longer, credit-adjusted term for the nonviolent offense will,
as he reads section 2933.1(a), keep him in prison a total of only five years—
exactly the same time he would have served had he never been convicted of and
sentenced for the violent offense.
Petitioner’s interpretation of section 2933.1(a) would rob the section of any
effect in his own case and thus entirely frustrate, if only in similar cases, the
Legislature’s purpose of delaying the release of violent offenders. Petitioner’s
interpretation thus cannot be described as fair (to the People) or reasonable.
(footnote continued from previous page)
(Dis. opn. of Chin, J., post, at pp. 20-21.) That the Department recognizes it must
already track changes in credit earning status suggests it can apply our holding. In
any event, the Department has no power to adopt a regulation or practice that
conflicts with a final, authoritative judicial interpretation of section 2933.1(a).
16
(People v. Buckhalter, supra, 26 Cal.4th 20, 28-29; People v. Bruner, supra, 9
Cal.4th 1178, 1194-1195; In re Joyner, supra, 48 Cal.3d 487, 495.) Petitioner’s
interpretation also creates tension with the statutory language, in this way: During
any period of time when petitioner is serving time in prison for both the violent
offense and the nonviolent offense, petitioner most certainly “is convicted of a
[violent] felony offense” (§ 2933.1(a), italics added) in every relevant sense.
Thus, to permit him to accrue worktime credit during such a period of
imprisonment at the rate of 50 percent for any purpose literally conflicts with the
language of section 2933.1(a).
The arguments supporting petitioner’s interpretation of section 2933.1(a)
are not persuasive. Petitioner first argues that worktime credit is accrued on an
offense-by-offense basis, at least when the offenses are punished with separate,
concurrent terms. He bases this argument on the so-called strict causation rule,
under which a prisoner “is not entitled to credit for presentence confinement
unless he shows that the conduct which led to his conviction was the sole reason
for his loss of liberty during the presentence period.” (People v. Bruner, supra, 9
Cal.4th 1178, 1191, italics added.) Thus, for example, a prisoner who serves a
period of presentence custody on Florida charges is not entitled to credit against
his subsequent prison sentence on California charges, even though a California
hold was in effect throughout the period of presentence custody. (In re Joyner,
supra, 48 Cal.3d 487, 492.) “Taking the logic that credits should be allocated to
the term for which they accrued and applying it to the credits limitation situation
here,” petitioner argues, “results in a sensible general rule that the credits
limitation applies to the term of imprisonment that is based on a qualifying
offense.” The argument lacks merit. The strict causation rule has no recognized
application outside the context of presentence credits.
17
Petitioner next argues that the rule of lenity compels us to adopt his
interpretation of section 2933.1(a). We disagree. “[A]lthough true ambiguities are
resolved in a defendant's favor, an appellate court should not strain to interpret a
penal statute in defendant’s favor if it can fairly discern a contrary legislative
intent.” (People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 58.) As we have explained,
petitioner’s interpretation of section 2933.1(a) would require us literally to violate
the statute’s command that “any person who is convicted of a [violent] felony
offense . . . shall accrue no more than 15 percent of worktime credit” (ibid.), at
least during the period of custody when petitioner is actually convicted of and
serving a term for a violent offense. Moreover, as we have also explained,
petitioner’s interpretation of the section would leave the section without any effect
on his own sentence, thus frustrating the Legislature’s goal of ensuring that violent
felons serve a great portion of their sentences.
In any event, resort to the rule of lenity is unnecessary. An interpretation of
section 2933.1(a) exists that is faithful to its language and to what we know of the
Legislature’s purpose, produces fair and reasonable results, and can be readily
understood and applied. Lacking definitive guidance in the language or history of
the statute, our aim must be to identify such an interpretation. (E.g., In re Joyner,
supra, 48 Cal.3d 487, 495.) As mentioned at the outset, we interpret the section as
follows: Section 2933.1(a) limits to 15 percent the rate at which a prisoner
convicted of and serving time for a violent offense may earn worktime credit,
regardless of any other offenses for which such a prisoner is simultaneously
serving a sentence.17 On the other hand, section 2933.1(a) has no application to a
17
Unless, of course, one of those other offenses more severely restricts the
prisoner’s ability to earn worktime credit. (E.g., § 2933.2, subd. (a) [eliminating
worktime credit altogether for persons convicted of murder].)
18
prisoner who is not actually serving a sentence for a violent offense; such a
prisoner may earn credit at a rate unaffected by the section. 18
Our interpretation is more faithful to the language of section 2933.1(a) than
is either the People’s or petitioner’s interpretation. Unlike the People’s
interpretation, our interpretation does not require us to treat a person who is no
longer subject to imprisonment for a violent offense as a person who “is
convicted” (§ 2933.1(a)) of such an offense. Unlike petitioner’s interpretation, our
interpretation does not require us to treat a person who is currently serving time
for a violent offense as a person who is not convicted of such an offense. Our
interpretation is also faithful to what we know of the Legislature’s purpose
because it effectively limits the rate at which petitioner and others in his situation
18
The dissent argues that if the Legislature in passing section 2933.1(a) had
“wanted to limit the statute’s application as the majority now does, it knew how to
do so expressly.” (Dis. opn. of Chin, J., at p. 8, fn. 4.) As evidence, the dissent
offers the language of Assembly Bill No. 2306 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) (as
amended Apr. 21, 1992), which would have provided that a defendant convicted
of a specified offense “shall accrue no more than 15 percent worktime credit
against his or her term of imprisonment for that offense . . . .” (Id., § 1, italics
added; see dis. opn. of Chin, J., at p. 8, fn. 4.) In fact, the italicized language
would not have codified our interpretation of section 2933.1(a); it would have
codified the interpretation of petitioner, who argues that section 2933.1(a) applies
on an offense-by-offense basis. (See ante, pp. 4, 16 et seq.) Rejecting petitioner’s
argument, we interpret section 2933.1(a) as applying to a prisoner’s entire
sentence, so long as the prisoner is serving time for a violent offense. (See ante,
p. 18 et seq.)
Furthermore, the bill to which the dissent refers was never enacted; nor did
it become section 2933.1 by subsequent amendment. Instead, the bill died in
committee in an earlier session of the Legislature and never came to a vote on the
floor. (6 Assem. J. (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) p. 10419.) Section 2933.1, as enacted
and codified, was introduced as Assembly Bill No. 113 during the 1993-1994
Regular Session and was, later in the same session, redesignated and enacted as
Assembly Bill No. 2716. To attempt to infer a subsequent Legislature’s collective
knowledge and intent from language that an earlier and differently composed
Legislature, acting as a whole, neither adopted nor rejected is irrational.
19
can earn worktime credit while serving sentences for violent offenses. Under our
interpretation, petitioner will accrue credit at the rate of 15 percent against his first
five years in prison and at the rate of 50 percent for his second five years. He will
thus serve a total of six years and nine months, which represents five years minus
15 percent credit, plus five years minus 50 percent credit.19 Our interpretation is
fair and reasonable both to the People, because it imposes a real restriction on a
violent offender’s ability to earn worktime credits, and to petitioner, because the
restriction ends when the term for the violent offense has been served.20 Of
course, our interpretation of section 2933.1 leaves the Legislature free to amend
the section if and as it chooses.
19
The proposed, credit-adjusted term of six years and nine months is shorter
than the term proposed by the People (eight years and six month) and longer than
the term proposed by petitioner (five years).
20
The dissent erroneously asserts that, under our interpretation, petitioner will
serve less time in prison “because [he] committed a nonviolent felony in addition
to the violent felony,” and that our interpretation of section 2933.1 is thus “unfair
to the People and absurd.” (Dis. opn. of Chin, J., post, at p. 17, italics in original.)
What the dissent apparently means is that section 2933.1(a) does not restrict
petitioner’s ability to earn credits as much as it theoretically might, because
petitioner’s three one-year enhancements for having served prior prison terms are
attached to the sentence for the nonviolent felony instead of to the sentence for the
violent felony. This unusual circumstance, however, is the result not of our
holding in this case but of the second sentencing court’s discretionary decision not
to run the new sentence for the violent felony consecutively to the existing
sentence for the nonviolent felony. (See § 669.) Had the court done so, the longer
base term for the violent felony (two, three or four years; see § 245, subd. (a)(1))
would necessarily have become the principal term (§ 1170.1, subd. (a)), the shorter
base term for the nonviolent felony (18 months, or two or three years; see § 18)
would necessarily have become the subordinate term (§ 1170.1, subd. (a)), the
prior prison term enhancements would necessarily have attached to the principal
term (ibid.), and the 15 percent credit limitation of section 2933.1(a) under our
holding would have applied to petitioner’s entire consecutive sentence.
20
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in
part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views set
forth herein.
WERDEGAR, J.
WE CONCUR:
GEORGE, C.J.
KENNARD, J.
MORENO, J.
21
DISSENTING OPINION BY CHIN, J.
Throughout this proceeding, the parties have offered two conflicting
constructions of Penal Code section 2933.1, subdivision (a) (hereafter section
2933.1(a)).1 Petitioner argues that the 15 percent sentence credit limit under that
statute applies only to the sentence he received for his conviction of assault with a
deadly weapon—which qualifies under section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8), as a
violent felony because he inflicted great bodily injury on his victim—and does not
apply to the sentence he received for possession of a controlled substance, which
does not qualify as a violent felony. The People, on the other hand, argue that the
15 percent credit limit fully applies to both sentences. I agree with the People
because, as I demonstrate below, their construction is consistent with the statutory
language, the legislative history, and 130 years of California case law interpreting
California sentence credit statutes under both determinate and indeterminate
sentencing schemes.
The majority rejects both constructions and, conjuring up its own, holds
that section 2933.1(a)’s credit limit applied to the sentence for petitioner’s drug
possession conviction only “as long as [petitioner] was serving the term for the
violent offense,” and became inapplicable “once [he] completed the term for the
1
All further unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
violent offense.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 2.) However, the majority’s interpretation
is inconsistent with the language of the statute viewed in its statutory context and
in light of our case law. Instead, the majority’s interpretation is based on language
that the Legislature could have adopted, but chose not to. The majority’s
interpretation is also inconsistent with the relevant legislative history. Finally, and
ironically, although the majority asserts that its interpretation is “fair and
reasonable” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 18), the results produced by its interpretation are
neither. Here, for example, under the majority’s interpretation, petitioner will
actually serve less total time in prison because he committed a second crime—the
drug possession offense—than he would have served had he committed only one
crime—the assault. Surely, the Legislature did not intend to grant defendants a
windfall for committing additional crimes. For these reasons, I dissent.
I. Background Facts
The procedural history of this action is important in understanding the
consequences of the majority’s holding. On January 19, 1999, in case No.
98HF0516, defendant was convicted by guilty plea of assault with a deadly
weapon other than a firearm. At the same time, he admitted one enhancement
under section 12022.7 for inflicting great bodily injury and four enhancements
under section 667.5, subdivision (b), for serving four separate prior prison terms
for felonies. Sentencing in the case was set for March 12, 1999.
Sentencing did not occur as scheduled on March 12. Instead, petitioner
went to trial in case No. 98WF0354, which charged the drug possession offense,
one enhancement under section 186.22 for committing the offense for the benefit
of a criminal street gang, one enhancement under Health and Safety Code section
11370.2 for a prior drug-related offense, and three enhancements under Penal
Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), for serving three separate prior prison terms
for felonies. On March 18, 1999, petitioner was convicted of the drug possession
2
offense and the enhancement allegations were found true. On the same date, the
court imposed a 10-year prison sentence in the drug possession case, which
included two years for the substantive offense, two years for the gang
enhancement, three years for the prior drug-related offense, and three years under
section 667.5, subdivision (b), for the three prior prison terms petitioner had
served.
Three weeks later, on April 6, 1999, the court sentenced petitioner in the
assault case. It imposed a five-year prison sentence, which included two years for
the assault conviction and three years for inflicting great bodily injury. Although,
as noted above, petitioner had earlier admitted the four enhancements alleged
under section 667.5, subdivision (b), for serving prior prison terms, the court
struck three of these enhancements because enhancements for the same prior
prison terms had been imposed three weeks earlier in the drug possession case.
The court struck the remaining enhancement at the People’s request in the interests
of justice. The minute order from the sentencing hearing, as well as the abstract of
judgment, specified that the sentence was concurrent with the sentence in the drug
possession case.
II. The Statutory Language Supports the People’s Construction, Not
the Majority’s
“As in any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task
here is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.
[Citation.] We [must] begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain
and commonsense meaning. [Citation.] We do not, however, consider the
statutory language ‘in isolation.’ [Citation.] Rather, we [must] look to ‘the entire
substance of the statute . . . in order to determine the scope and purpose of the
provision . . . . [Citation.]’ [Citation.] That is, we [should] construe the words in
question ‘ “in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the
statute . . . .” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] We must harmonize ‘the various parts of a
3
statutory enactment . . . by considering the particular clause or section in the
context of the statutory framework as a whole.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Murphy
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142.)
Contrary to what the majority opinion might lead one to believe, applying
these principles here is relatively simple. Section 2933.1(a) provides that
“[n]otwithstanding any other law, any person who is convicted of a felony offense
listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 shall accrue no more than 15 percent of
worktime credit, as defined in Section 2933.” I agree with the majority that this
provision applied to petitioner’s sentences in both cases here because of his assault
conviction, and the question becomes, “for how long.” The answer is found in
section 2933, which section 2933.1(a) specifically references. Section 2933,
subdivision (a), expresses the Legislature’s general “intent” that a prisoner
“sentenced to the state prison under Section 1170 serve the entire sentence
imposed by the court,” and then qualifies that intent by providing for “worktime
credit reductions from [the prisoner’s] term of confinement.” (Italics added.)
Here, petitioner’s term of confinement—i.e., the period of time he is to spend in
prison—is 10 years, which is the longer of the concurrent sentences imposed.
Given that section 2933.1(a) limits accrual of “worktime credit, as defined in
Section 2933,” and that section 2933, subdivision (a), refers to a defendant’s
“entire sentence” and his or her “term of confinement,” it is reasonable to
conclude that the Legislature intended section 2933.1(a)’s limitation to apply to
petitioner’s entire 10-year term of confinement.
This conclusion is consistent with 130 years of California case law
involving interpretation of our sentence credit statutes. In Ex Parte Dalton (1875)
49 Cal. 463, 465, we construed a statute providing that work and good behavior
credits “shall be deducted from ‘the entire term of penal servitude to which [the
prisoner] has been sentenced.’ ” We held that the phrase “entire term of penal
servitude” referred to the total prison time collectively imposed for all of the
prisoner’s current convictions, not to the separate periods imposed for each
4
conviction. (Ibid.) We explained that each separate period “is but a part of the
entire term” and that “[w]hatever deduction is to be made for good behavior [and
work], is not to be taken from the beginning or the middle, but from the end of the
entire term.” (Ibid.) When we decided Dalton in 1875, California had a
determinate sentencing scheme similar to the determinate sentencing scheme in
effect today.2 However, almost 60 years later, when the indeterminate sentencing
law was in effect, we followed Dalton and reached the same conclusion in
interpreting a statute that, using the same phrase now found in section 2933,
provided for credit reductions from the prisoner’s “ ‘term of confinement.’ ” (In
re Albori (1933) 218 Cal. 34, 36 (Albori).) This phrase, we explained, “conveys
the thought of a ‘continuous period of imprisonment’ and . . . should be construed
to have the same effect . . . as the expression ‘entire term of penal servitude.’ ”
(Id. at p. 37.)
We later followed Albori in In re Cowen (1946) 27 Cal.2d 637 (Cowen).
There, defendant was convicted in one action of attempted robbery, and was
convicted in a separate action of rape and robbery. (Id. at p. 639.) He received
concurrent sentences for the rape and robbery convictions, and a consecutive
sentence for the attempted robbery conviction. (Ibid.) Following Albori, we held
that the phrase “term of confinement” in the then operative credit statute referred
to “the total term of confinement” imposed for all current convictions, rather than
“the separate terms” imposed for separate convictions. (Cowen, at p. 643.) We
also held that “for the purposes of allowing and forfeiting credits,” a prisoner with
concurrent sentences for two convictions and a consecutive sentence for another
2
California’s indeterminate sentencing law was adopted in 1917. (Stats.
1917, ch. 527, p. 665.) “Prior to 1917, California had a ‘definite’ sentencing
system.” (Note, Senate Bill 42 and the Myth of Shortened Sentences for
California Offenders: The Effects of the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act
(1977) 14 S. Diego L.Rev. 1176, 1178.)
5
“is undergoing a single, aggregate term of confinement . . . .” (Id. at p. 647.)
Finally, we explained that whether a prisoner is serving consecutive sentences, or
is serving “concurrent sentences for crimes committed on separate occasions,
perhaps in separate counties, the sentences are . . . ‘coalesced into one.’ ” (Ibid.)
These decisions strongly support the conclusion that section 2933.1(a)’s
credit limit applies throughout petitioner’s entire period of confinement. “The
Legislature . . . is deemed to be aware of statutes and judicial decisions already in
existence, and to have enacted or amended a statute in light thereof. [Citation.]
Where a statute is framed in language of an earlier enactment on the same or
analogous subject, and that enactment has been judicially construed, the
Legislature is presumed to have adopted that construction. [Citation.]” (People v.
Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 329.) Thus, in using the phrase “term of
confinement” in section 2933, subdivision (a), and in expressly incorporating that
phrase into section 2933.1(a), “the Legislature undoubtedly intended to convey the
same meaning” we gave to that identical phrase in construing the sentence credit
statutes at issue in Albori and Cowen.3 (People v. Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p.
329.)
3
Given these decisions, the majority is simply incorrect in stating that “no
principle of California law merges concurrent terms into a single aggregate term.”
(Maj. opn., ante, at p. 8.) As I have noted, Dalton was decided in 1875, when
California had a determinate sentencing scheme, and was followed in Albori,
when California had an indeterminate sentencing scheme. Nothing in the
determinate sentencing law (DSL) in effect since 1976 abrogates these decisions
or is inconsistent with their analyses. Section 1170.1, subdivision (a), which the
majority discusses (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 8-9), merely specifies the formula for
calculating “[t]he aggregate term” for multiple convictions when consecutive
sentences are imposed. It does not establish, or even suggest, that the collective
term for concurrently sentenced felony convictions is not “a single, unified term of
confinement for purposes of worktime credit.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 9.) On the
contrary, since adoption of the DSL, both this court and our Courts of Appeal have
continued to refer to the combined sentence for concurrent terms as an “aggregate”
term or sentence. (E.g., People v. Williams (2004) 34 Cal.4th 397, 401; People v.
(footnote continued on next page)
6
Further supporting this conclusion is the specific language of two other
sentence credit statutes that appear in the same article as section 2933.1. Section
2933.6, subdivision (a), provides that “a person who is placed in a Security
Housing Unit or an Administrative Segregation Unit for [specified] misconduct
. . . is ineligible to earn work credits or good behavior credits during the time [the
person] is in the Security Housing Unit or the Administrative Segregation Unit for
that misconduct.” (Italics added.) Section 2934 provides that prisoners subject to
section 2931 who waive their right to sentence credits under that statute “shall
retain only that portion of . . . credits . . . attributable to the portion of the sentence
served by the prisoner prior to the effective date of the waiver.” (Italics added.)
The Legislature passed section 2933.6 in 1992 (Stats. 1992, ch. 1175, § 1, p.
5514), and it passed section 2934 in 1982 (Stats. 1982, ch. 1234, § 5, p. 4552).
Thus, in 1994, when it passed section 2933.1 and placed it in the same article as
sections 2933.6 and 2934, the Legislature clearly knew how to, but did not, adopt
language that would have made section 2933.1(a)’s credit limit applicable only
“during the time” (§ 2933.6) a prisoner is confined for the violent felony
conviction or during that portion of a prisoner’s current prison confinement
(footnote continued from previous page)
McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798, 801; People v. Bruce G. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th
1233, 1236; People v. Cole (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1674; People v. Parrott
(1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1119, 1122.) The majority offers no persuasive reason for
disregarding any of the decisions I have cited or discussed (see maj. opn., ante, at
p. 9, fn. 11), and fails to cite a single decision supporting its contrary view. The
majority also errs in asserting that “when an aggregate term” of a consecutively
sentenced prisoner “includes time for a violent offense, at any point during that
term the prisoner . . . actually is serving time for that offense.” (Maj. opn., ante, at
p. 8.) Under the majority’s view, a consecutively sentenced defendant may, and
often will, serve more time for a given offense than the statutory maximum for
that offense. Again, the majority cites no authority for its assertion.
7
“attributable to” (§ 2934) the violent felony conviction.4 As we recently explained
in construing the same article of the Penal Code at issue here, “ ‘[w]here a statute
referring to one subject contains a critical word or phrase, omission of that word or
phrase from a similar statute on the same subject generally shows a different
legislative intent.’ [Citation.]” (In re Young (2004) 32 Cal.4th 900, 907.) Thus,
that the Legislature omitted from section 2933.1(a) the type of limiting language
found in sections 2933.6 and 2934 is additional evidence the Legislature did not
intend to impose the limit on section 2933.1(a) the majority now writes into that
statute.
Also supporting the People’s construction is the Court of Appeal’s decision
in People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810 (Ramos), which the majority
generally endorses. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 11-12.) Ramos construed subdivision
(c) of section 2933.1, which states: “the maximum credit that may be earned
against a period of confinement in . . . a county jail [or other local facility] . . .
following arrest and prior to placement in the custody of the Director of
Corrections, shall not exceed 15 percent of the actual period of confinement for
any person specified in subdivision (a).” In Ramos, the defendant, who was
ultimately sentenced to consecutive sentences for both violent and nonviolent
felonies, argued that section 2933.1, subdivision (c), did not limit accrual of credit
for presentence confinement as to his nonviolent felony conviction. (Ramos,
supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 817.) In rejecting this argument, the court reasoned:
4
As proposed during the 1991-1992 Regular Session of the Legislature,
section 2933.1(a) provided that a defendant convicted of a specified offense could
earn no more than 15 percent worktime credit against his sentence “for that
offense.” (Assem. Bill No. 2306 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 21,
1992, § 1.) Although this language would have imposed a somewhat different
limitation than the one the majority now judicially writes into the statute, it is
additional evidence that had the Legislature, when it passed section 2933.1 at the
next Regular Session, wanted to limit the statute’s application as the majority now
does, it knew how to do so expressly.
8
“[T]he language of section 2933.1 does not support [the defendant’s] position.
The statute applies ‘[n]otwithstanding Section 4019 or any other provision of the
law’ and limits to 15 percent the maximum number of conduct credits available to
‘any person who is convicted of a felony offense listed in Section 667.5.’ That is,
by its terms, section 2933.1 applies to the offender not to the offense and so limits
a violent felon’s conduct credits irrespective of whether or not all his or her
offenses come within section 667.5. The Legislature could have confined the 15
percent rule to the defendant’s violent felonies if that had been its intention. (Cf. §
2900.5, subd. (b), limiting presentence credits to the custody ‘attributable to
proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been
convicted.’)” (Ramos, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 817, italics added.)
The majority’s attempt to distinguish Ramos is unpersuasive. The majority
finds that the Ramos court “reasonably rejected” the defendant’s position in that
case based on “ ‘the language of section 2933.1’ ” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 11), but
asserts that the court’s statement “that ‘section 2933.1 applies to the offender not
to the offense’ [citation] makes sense [only] in the context” there at issue:
“presentence credits.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 11-12.) However, the majority’s
analysis ignores the fact that the statement in question—that “section 2933.1
applies to the offender not to the offense” (Ramos, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p.
817)—was based on the language of subdivision (a) of section 2933.1—“any
person who is convicted of a [violent] felony”—which is the very provision at
issue here. The majority’s analysis also overlooks the fact that the Ramos court’s
observation about the Legislature’s ability to write a more limited statute is
equally applicable here; as explained above, the Legislature knew how to, but did
not, adopt language making section 2933.1(a)’s accrual limit applicable only
“during the time” (§ 2933.6) a prisoner is confined for the violent felony
conviction or during that portion of a prisoner’s current prison confinement
“attributable to” (§ 2934) the violent felony conviction. This omission becomes
especially significant given the majority’s interpretation of section 2933.1,
9
subdivision (c); if, as the majority correctly concludes, the credit limit of that
subdivision applies to the entire period of presentence confinement “regardless of
the offenses . . . charged” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 10), then surely the Legislature,
had it intended subdivision (a) to operate differently with respect to postconviction
confinement, would have adopted language expressly so providing. That it did not
do so supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended the two subdivisions to
operate in the same manner. Thus, the language of section 2933.1(a), viewed in
the context of the rest of the statute, the other statutes expressly incorporated into
section 2933.1(a), the other statutes in the same article as section 2933.1(a), and
our case law for 130 years, clearly supports the People’s construction of the
statute.
Ignoring the statutory context and our prior decisions, the majority rejects
the People’s construction because it purportedly “creates tension with the statutory
language” of section 2933.1(a). (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 14.) In reaching this
conclusion, the majority first asserts that a prisoner who has “served the term for
the violent offense . . . ‘is convicted of a [violent] felony offense’ [citation]”
within the meaning of the statute “only” in the following “sense”: “as a matter of
historical fact.” (Id. at pp. 14-15.) The majority next asserts that this “sense” is
“inapplicable” given the majority’s “reject[ion]” earlier in its opinion of an
interpretation that “treats a conviction for a violent offense as a continuing
disability that restricts an offender’s ability to earn worktime credits even after he
has served his sentence for that offense.” (Id. at p. 15.) According to the majority,
the tension exists because, “[e]xcept in this inapplicable sense, to say that
petitioner at the present time ‘is convicted’ [citation] of a violent offense is not
correct.” (Ibid.)
The majority’s analysis is flawed in several respects. First, the
interpretation that the majority rejects at the beginning of its opinion is not, as the
majority later asserts, that a conviction for a violent offense “[is] a continuing
disability that restricts an offender’s ability to earn worktime credits even after he
10
has served his sentence for that offense.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 15, italics added.)
Had that been the interpretation the majority earlier rejected, the People’s
construction would not merely create tension with the statutory language, it would
be in direct conflict with that language. Instead, as a careful reading of the
majority opinion discloses, the earlier rejected interpretation is that a violent
felony conviction makes section 2933.1(a)’s credit limit applicable “for all time”
and that the statute establishes “a continuing disability based on criminal history.”
(Maj. opn., ante, at p. 6, italics added.) Second, the People’s construction does not
create tension with the statutory language, as actually construed earlier in the
majority’s opinion, because contrary to the majority’s assertion, it is not true that a
prisoner who has “served the term for the violent offense . . . ‘is convicted of a
[violent] felony offense’ [citation]” within the meaning of the statute “only” in one
“sense”: “as a matter of historical fact.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 14-15.) As I have
demonstrated, even after a prisoner has “served the term” (ibid) for a qualifying
violent offense, he or she “is convicted of” a violent felony offense (§ 2933.1,
subd. (a)) in another sense: with regard to his or her current “term of
confinement” as that phrase, which is incorporated by reference into section
2933.1(a), is used in section 2933. Understood in this sense, the statutory
language is perfectly consistent with both the People’s construction of the statute
and the majority’s holding that section 2933.1(a) is not applicable “for all time . . .
based on criminal history.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 6.) Thus, contrary to the
majority’s assertion, there is no tension between the statutory language and the
People’s construction.
The majority’s assertion that its construction is “faithful to the [statute’s]
language” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 19) is also incorrect. In making this assertion, the
majority explains that its interpretation does not treat a prisoner “who is no longer
subject to imprisonment for a violent offense as a person who ‘is convicted’
(§ 2933.1(a)) of such an offense.” (Ibid.) However, the statute does not state that
its credit limit applies only while the prisoner is “subject to imprisonment for a
11
violent offense.” (Ibid.) Nor does it state, as the majority elsewhere suggests, that
the credit limit applies only while a person convicted of a violent offense “actually
is serving time for that offense.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 8.) As I have already
explained, when it passed section 2933.1, the Legislature clearly knew how to
adopt language conveying this limitation in scope, but chose not to. By writing
this limiting language into the statute, the majority exceeds our proper role as a
court in construing statutes, which “is simply to ascertain and declare what is in
terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted . . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1858, italics added; see also Security Pacific National Bank v.
Wozab (1990) 51 Cal.3d 991, 998 [“insert[ing]” additional language into a statute
“violate[s] the cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must not add
provisions to statutes”].)5 By contrast, as I have demonstrated, the People’s
construction is faithful to the statutory language read in context and as it has been
construed for 130 years.
III. The Legislative History Supports the People’s Construction, Not
the Majority’s
To the extent the statutory language, viewed in the context of the statutory
framework and our relevant decisions, is ambiguous, the legislative history
supports the People’s construction.
At the outset, it is noteworthy that the majority cites nothing in the
legislative history that supports its construction. For good reason: there is
nothing. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that the Legislature intended
to establish the two-tiered credit system the majority adopts. Nor does anything
suggest that the Legislature intended to establish different credit rules depending
5
“A different set of considerations and limitations governs the reformation
of statutes to preserve their constitutionality. [Citation.]” (People v. Garcia
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 1, 15, fn. 9.)
12
on whether convictions are sentenced concurrently or consecutively. Yet, this is
the effect of the majority’s conclusion that section 2933.1(a)’s credit limit would
have applied to petitioner’s entire term of confinement had he been sentenced
consecutively rather than concurrently. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 7-8.)
On the other hand, in several respects, the legislative history undermines
the majority’s analysis and supports the People’s construction. First, it confirms
the People’s view, which was adopted in Ramos based solely of the statutory
language of section 2933.1(a), that the Legislature intended section 2933.1 to
apply “to the offender not to the offense.” (Ramos, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p.
817.) In a statement of urgency enacted with the statute, the Legislature declared
that the statute’s purpose is “to protect the public from dangerous . . . offenders
who otherwise would be released.” (Stats. 1994, ch. 713, § 2, p. 3348, italics
added.) Similarly, the Senate Rules Committee’s third reading analysis of the bill
containing section 2933.1 explained that the statute’s purpose is to prevent
“violent and sexual offenders . . . from receiving more than 15% worktime credit.”
(Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill
No. 2716 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended July 6, 1994, p. 3, italics added.)
Another legislative analysis explained: “The bill’s intent is for those persons
committing certain serious crimes for the first or second time to serve as much as
possible their full-term sentence. This bill would limit the maximum work-time
credit earned, not to exceed 15% of the actual period of confinement. [¶] . . .
[S]erious felony offenders will get their ‘true punishment’ by serving the most of
their actual sentence.” (Cal. Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, analysis of
Assem. Bill No. 113 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended Jan. 31, 1994, p. 2,
italics added.)6 These statements demonstrate the Legislature’s intent that section
6
Section 2933.1, as it was enacted in 1994, was initially proposed in
identical language in the January 31, 1994, version of Assembly Bill No. 113
(1993-1994 Reg. Sess.). The proposed statute was later inserted in Assembly Bill
(footnote continued on next page)
13
2933.1 apply “to the offender not to the offense” (Ramos, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at
p. 817) with respect to both presentence and postconviction confinement, not, as
the majority asserts without basis, only with respect to the former. (Maj. opn.,
ante, at pp. 11-12.)
Second, the legislative history confirms that the Legislature intended
section 2933.1(a) to apply precisely as the People argue it applies: to petitioner’s
entire term of confinement. After the Legislature passed the statute but before it
was enrolled and sent to the Governor for signature, the Assembly, on “unanimous
consent,” printed a “statement of legislative intent . . . in the [Assembly] Journal”
regarding the statute. (6 Assem. J. (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) p. 9353.) The
statement of intent, which took the form of a letter to the Chief Clerk of the
Assembly from the statute’s author, Assembly Member Richard Katz, declared:
“In enacting Penal Code section 2933.1, it is my intent and that of the Legislature
to ensure that the maximum fifteen percent reduction apply to a defendant’s entire
term of imprisonment, so long as the defendant has been convicted of at least one
violent felony . . . .” (6 Assem. J. (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) p. 9353, italics added.)
This statement of intent directly confirms what is evident from the rest of the
legislative history and the language of the statute viewed in its statutory context
and in light of our case law: the Legislature intended and understood that “so long
as the defendant has been convicted of at least one violent felony,” the 15 percent
credit limit of section 2933.1(a) would be “appl[ied] to a defendant’s entire term
of imprisonment.” (6 Assem. J. (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) p. 9353.) Here, that entire
(footnote continued from previous page)
No. 2716 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.). (See In re Carr (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1525,
1532-1533.) The analysis of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency that I have
cited above was contained in the files of the Assembly Republican Caucus.
14
term of imprisonment includes petitioner’s confinement for the drug possession
conviction.
Unlike the majority, I do not find this statement of intent to be
“ambiguous.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 13.) The majority concedes that the
statement “could refer to a prisoner’s entire period of confinement in state prison,
as the People here argue.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 14.) However, the majority
speculates, the statement also “could” be referring merely to “an aggregate term”
under section 1170.1, subdivision (a), that “combin[es] consecutive terms for both
violent and nonviolent offenses.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 13-14.) The majority’s
speculation regarding the latter meaning is highly implausible, given that the
statement of intent does not refer to section 1170.1, to the concept of an aggregate
term, or to consecutive sentences. Nothing in the statement of intent even
suggests that the Legislature intended to distinguish between consecutive and
concurrent terms with respect to the statute’s operation, or that it wanted the
statute’s credit limit “to apply to a defendant’s entire term of imprisonment” (6
Assem. J. (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) p. 9353) only if that entire term resulted from
consecutive sentences. Indeed, the conclusion that the Legislature did not have
this intent is consistent with a fact stressed by the majority: the statement of intent
does not “specifically address” the statute’s application “to a separate, concurrent
term for a nonviolent offense.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 14.) The statement of intent
does not specifically address either concurrent or consecutive sentences because
the Legislature did not intend to distinguish between the two. Thus, in my view,
the majority is straining to find ambiguity where no real ambiguity exists. In any
event, even were the majority correct that some ambiguity exists, the People’s
interpretation is far more plausible than the majority’s.7
7
In speculating that the printed statement of intent was referring only to
consecutive sentences, the majority primarily relies on a statutory analysis
prepared by the California Department of Corrections (CDC). (Maj. opn., ante, at
(footnote continued on next page)
15
In short, the legislative history, like the statutory language, supports the
People’s construction.
(footnote continued from previous page)
p. 14, fn. 15.) However, the cited analysis was completed and submitted on
August 30, 1994, after the relevant language of the printed statement of intent was
proposed on August 29, 1994. (See Gregory Totten, Exec. Director of Cal. Dist.
Attys. Assn., letter to Kathy Van Osten, Aug. 29, 1994, at p. 1.) Moreover, the
cited analysis was not submitted to the Legislature, but was sent to the Governor
as an enrolled bill report analyzing the already passed bill and recommending that
he sign it. (Cal. Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, Cal. Dept. of Corrections,
Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 2716 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) Aug. 30,
1994, p. 3.) For these reasons, it is doubtful that the statement of intent was
addressing the concern raised in the enrolled bill report the majority cites. The
majority errs in asserting that concerns about the statute’s application specifically
to consecutively sentenced defendants were raised earlier by the California
Probation, Parole and Correctional Association. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 14, fn. 15.)
The April 1993 letter the majority cites for its assertion (ibid.) made no reference
to consecutively sentenced defendants or to any difficulty in applying the statute
specifically to such defendants. Rather, it cryptically complained that the statute
would require “probation officers . . . to calculate a prisoner’s full confinement
time and then recalculate jail and prison time separately at the 15 percent
reduction, thereby adding to their workload.” (Executive Director Susan Cohen,
Cal. Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn., letter to Assemblyman Richard
Katz, Apr. 15, 1993.) This concern was later restated verbatim in a letter dated
June 24, 1993. (Executive Director Susan Cohen, Cal. Probation, Parole and
Correctional Assn., letter to Assemblyman Richard Katz, June 24, 1993.) A
subsequent letter, dated July 28, 1993, clarified that the concern “raised in” the
prior letters was that “probation officer[s]” would have to calculate “jail credits”
for “certain prison-bound inmates”—i.e., those subject to section 2933.1—
“differently from other sentenced prisoners[],” such as those “who will be serving
their full sentence in the jail.” (Executive Director Susan Cohen, Cal. Probation,
Parole and Correctional Assn., letter to Assemblyman Richard Katz, July 28,
1993.) Thus, the letter the majority cites raised the “same concern” as the enrolled
bill report (maj. opn., ante, at p. 14, fn. 15) only in the sense it noted that the
statute would require additional work. The cited letter is simply unrelated to the
relevant language in the statement of intent and sheds no light on that language,
which was published on August 31, 1994, more than a year after the letter was
sent.
16
IV. The Majority’s Conclusion Produces Absurd and Unfair Results
that the Legislature Did Not Intend
Lacking statutory language, legislative history, or case law to support its
interpretation, the majority ultimately relies only on its own sense of fairness.
According to the majority, the People’s interpretation “is not entirely fair” to
petitioner and others in his situation because it would make section 2933.1(a)’s
credit limit applicable even after petitioner’s “conviction for the violent offense
gives the [CDC] no claim to his physical custody.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 15.) On
the other hand, the majority asserts, its interpretation is “fair . . . to the People,
because it imposes a real restriction on a violent offender’s ability to earn
worktime credits.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 20.)
In reality, the result in this case of applying the majority’s interpretation is
both unfair to the People and absurd; under it, because petitioner committed a
nonviolent felony in addition to the violent felony, section 2933.1(a)’s credit limit
will actually apply for a shorter period of time, and his actual time in prison will
actually be less, than if he had committed only the violent felony. As noted
earlier, when the second sentencing court imposed sentence for the violent felony
conviction, it struck three one-year enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision
(b), for prior prison terms because enhancements for these same prior prison terms
had been imposed three weeks earlier in the drug possession case. Had these three
one-year enhancements been imposed in connection with the violent felony
conviction, petitioner’s sentence for that conviction would have been eight years
instead of five, section 2933.1(a)’s credit limit would have applied for all eight of
those years, and petitioner would have had to serve 81.6 months in prison (which
is 85 percent of eight years). According to the majority, because the three
enhancements were imposed in connection with the nonviolent felony conviction
instead of the violent felony conviction, section 2933.1(a)’s credit limit does not
apply to the three years petitioner received for these enhancements and petitioner
must serve only 81 months in prison. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 20.) Thus, assuming
17
that the second sentencing court correctly struck the enhancements—and the
majority does not contend otherwise—under the majority’s interpretation,
petitioner will actually serve less time in prison because he committed an
additional, albeit nonviolent, offense. Unlike the majority, I do not consider this
result to be fair to the People, rational, or consistent with what the majority
concedes was the Legislature’s intent in passing section 2933.1(a): “to protect the
public by delaying the release of prisoners convicted of violent offenses.” (Maj.
opn., ante, at p. 5, italics added.) In this regard, the majority’s reading of the
statute violates a basic rule of statutory interpretation: we must “avoid a
construction that would produce absurd consequences, which we presume the
Legislature did not intend. [Citations.]” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th
896, 908.) By contrast, the People’s construction is consistent with the
Legislature’s intent and is fair to petitioner because it makes section 2933.1(a)’s
credit limit applicable to the three years petitioner would have received for the
enhancements in the violent felony case but for the fact that they were fortuitously
imposed three weeks earlier in the nonviolent felony case.
The majority errs in asserting that this absurd result is simply a product of
“the second sentencing court’s discretionary decision” to sentence petitioner
concurrently, and “not of [the majority’s] holding in this case.” (Maj. opn., ante,
at p. 20, fn. 20.) It is true that, under the majority’s analysis, section 2933.1(a)’s
credit limit would have applied to the enhancements had the second sentencing
court sentenced petitioner consecutively. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 20, fn. 20.)
However, a second sentencing court does not have unlimited discretion to sentence
a defendant consecutively, and must specify adequate grounds for doing so in a
statement of reasons. (People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 934; People v.
Bradford (1976) 17 Cal.3d 8, 20.) Assuming that a desire to ensure section
2933.1(a)’s application to the enhancements would have been a legally adequate
18
reason in this case, I doubt the Legislature intended to make this a driving factor in
a court’s decision to sentence a defendant consecutively rather than concurrently.8
In any event, under the People’s construction, section 2933.1(a)’s credit limit
would apply to the enhancements notwithstanding the second sentencing court’s
decision to sentence petitioner concurrently. Thus, contrary to the majority’s
assertion, the fact that section 2933.1(a) does not apply to petitioner’s
enhancements most certainly is “the result of . . . of [the majority’s] holding in this
case.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 20, fn. 20.)
In any event, putting aside the fact that the People’s construction would not
be unfair to petitioner and that the majority’s interpretation is unfair to the People,
the majority errs in basing its conclusion on whether the People’s construction is
“entirely” fair to petitioner and others in his situation. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 15.)
As the majority elsewhere recognizes, one of the considerations we sometimes
look to in construing credit statutes is whether a proposed construction, in addition
to being “ ‘faithful to [the statute’s] language, . . . produces fair and reasonable
results in a majority of cases’ ” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 5, italics added), not whether
it is entirely fair in a particular kind of case. Indeed, we have expressly
“recognize[d] that any rule or combination of rules is likely to produce some
incongruous results and arguable unfairness when compared to a theoretical state
of perfect and equal justice.” (In re Joyner (1989) 48 Cal.3d 487, 495.) I have
already shown that the majority’s interpretation is not faithful to the statute’s
language viewed in statutory context and in light of our case law. Nor will it
produce fair and reasonable results in a majority of cases. In my view, it is neither
fair nor reasonable to have one credit rule for violent offenders who are
concurrently sentenced, and a different rule for violent offenders who are
8
Ironically, the majority’s holding, although premised on purported fairness
to defendants like petitioner, may actually work to their disadvantage by
encouraging courts to sentence them consecutively instead of concurrently.
19
consecutively sentenced. Indeed, the majority fails even to attempt to explain why
the Legislature would have wanted to draw this distinction. Moreover, where a
nonviolent felony and a violent felony are committed in connection with each
other, there is nothing unfair or unreasonable about limiting credits earned by a
concurrently sentenced violent offender during his or her entire term of
confinement. Although the offenses petitioner committed in this case were
unrelated, the majority’s rule is not so limited; it applies to all cases involving
concurrent sentencing. Because the People’s construction, rather than the
majority’s, will produce fair and reasonable results in the majority of cases—and
is faithful to the statutory language and consistent with the legislative history—we
should adopt the People’s construction even were the majority correct that the
result of applying it is not entirely fair to petitioner in this case.
Finally, I have serious doubt about the majority’s assertion that its
interpretation “can be readily understood and applied.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 18.)
The majority is correct that this is an additional consideration—along with the
statutory language and the reasonableness of the results—we sometimes look to in
construing credit statutes. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 5, citing In re Joyner, supra, 48
Cal.3d at p. 495.) However, the majority is incorrect in asserting that its
interpretation satisfies this consideration. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 18.) In this
regard, the majority errs in suggesting that its interpretation fits easily within the
existing procedures of the CDC. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 15, fn. 16.) As the
majority notes, according to the CDC’s Operations Manual, the CDC “calculates a
prisoner’s earliest possible release date . . . , adjusted for worktime credit, by
reference to a ‘controlling term.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) The Operations Manual also
specifies that “[t]he term which retains the person in custody the longest shall be
the controlling term.” (Cal. Dept. of Corrections, Operations Manual (2000)
§ 73030.7.8.) Thus, under existing CDC procedures, the controlling term here for
purposes of determining sentence credits is the longer term imposed for
petitioner’s nonviolent offense. However, according to the majority,
20
“[p]etitioner’s shorter concurrent term for the violent offense properly controlled
the rate at which he accrued worktime credit only until he completed that term,”
and “the longer concurrent term for the nonviolent offense . . . properly controlled
his . . . ability to earn worktime credit” thereafter. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 15, fn.
16.) This discrepancy between the CDC’s actual practice and the majority’s
analysis undermines the majority’s view about the simplicity of its interpretation.
By contrast, the People’s construction surely “can be readily understood
and applied.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 18, italics added.) Moreover, as I have
already shown, the People’s construction, unlike the majority’s interpretation, also
is faithful to the statutory language and consistent with the legislative history, and
would produce fair and reasonable results in both this and the majority of cases.
For all of these reasons, I would adopt the People’s construction. I therefore
dissent.
CHIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BAXTER, J.
BROWN, J.
21
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion In re Reeves on Habeas Corpus
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted XXX 102 Cal.App.4th 232
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No. S110887
Date Filed: May 9, 2005
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court: Superior
County: Orange
Judge: Ronald P. Kreber
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Appellant:
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner and Robert R. Anderson, Chief
Assistant Attorneys General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Robert
M. Foster, Laura Whitcomb Halgren, Steven T. Oetting, David Delgado-Rucci and
Lynne G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant Department of
Corrections.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Respondent:
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Suzanne
Rothlisberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent James
Greebe Reeves.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Lynne G. McGinnis
Deputy Attorney General
110 West “A” Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 645-2223
David K. Rankin
555 West Beach Street, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92101-2939
(619) 696-0282
Opinion Information
| Date: | Docket Number: |
| Mon, 05/09/2005 | S110887 |
Parties
| 1 | The People (Non-Title Respondent) Represented by Lynne G. Mcginnis Attorney General Ofc P O Box 85266 San Diego, CA |
| 2 | The People (Non-Title Respondent) Represented by David Delgado-Rucci David Delgado-Rucci, DAG 110 West A St. # 1100, P. O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA |
| 3 | Reeves, James Greebe (Petitioner) Represented by David K. Rankin Appellate Defenders, Inc. 555 West Beech St., Suite 300 San Diego, CA |
| 4 | Reeves, James Greebe (Petitioner) Represented by Appellate Defenders, Inc. 555 West Beech Street, Suite 300 555 West Beech Street, Suite 300 San Diego, CA |
| 5 | Reeves, James Greebe (Petitioner) Represented by Suzanne Pauline Rothlisberger Attorney at Law 5318 E. Second Street, #570 Long Beach, CA |
| Disposition | |
| May 9 2005 | Opinion: Affirmed in part/reversed in part |
| Dockets | |
| Oct 24 2002 | Petition for review filed by the Attorney General-San Diego on behalf of The People |
| Oct 24 2002 | Record requested |
| Oct 29 2002 | Received Court of Appeal record 1-doghouse |
| Dec 18 2002 | Petition for Review Granted (criminal case) Votes: George, CJ., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin and Moreno, JJ. |
| Jan 17 2003 | Request for extension of time filed Respondent requesting to Feb. 18, 2003 to file opening brief on the merits. (recv'd in San Diego) (granted - order being prepared) |
| Jan 23 2003 | Counsel appointment order filed Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, Appellate Defenders, Inc. is herby appointed to represent appellant on his appeal now pending in this court. Appellant's brief on the merits shall be served and filed on or before thirty (30) days from the date respondent's opening brief on the merits is filed. |
| Jan 27 2003 | Extension of time granted On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including February 18, 2003. |
| Feb 14 2003 | Request for extension of time filed in San Diego by counsel for respondent requesting to March 20, 2003 to file opening brief on the merits. (granted - order being prepared) |
| Feb 21 2003 | Extension of time granted On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including March 20, 2003. |
| Mar 17 2003 | Received: Opening brief on the merits and Request for judicial notice from the Attorney General with defective proof of service. Counsel for petitioner was not served. AG to mail in amended proof of service. |
| Mar 19 2003 | Request for judicial notice filed (in non-AA proceeding) by counsel (AG) for respondent. |
| Mar 19 2003 | Opening brief on the merits filed with permission by counsel (AG) for respondent. (submitted with blue covers) |
| Mar 19 2003 | Received: amended proof of service from AG for Opening brief on the merits and Request for judicial notice. |
| Apr 17 2003 | Request for extension of time filed by counsel for petitioner requesting an extension to May 19, 2003 to file the answer brief on the merits. |
| Apr 22 2003 | Extension of time granted Petitioner's time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including May 19, 2003. |
| May 15 2003 | Request for extension of time filed petitioner requesting to June 18, 2003 to file answer brief on the merits. (recv'd in San Diego) |
| May 22 2003 | Extension of time granted On application of petitioner and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including June 18, 2003. No further extensions are contemplated. |
| Jun 17 2003 | Answer brief on the merits filed in San Diego by counsel for petiioner (James Greebe Reeves). |
| Apr 1 2004 | Filed: Letter from counsel for petitioner. Counsel advises the court that he will be out of town 4/29/04 to 5/7/04 and requests not to be put on calendar during this time. |
| Dec 22 2004 | Supplemental briefing ordered The court requests the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs expressing their views on the following possible interpretation of Penal Code section 2933.1, subdivision (a): The statute limits to 15 percent the rate at which a prisoner convicted of and actually serving a term for a violent offense may earn worktime credit, even though such a prisoner is also serving a concurrent term for a nonviolent offense; however, once such a prisoner has completed the term for the violent offense and remains in custody only to serve the remainder of the concurrent term for the nonviolent offense, such a prisoner becomes prospectively eligible to earn worktime credit at a rate not limited by the statute. The parties are requested to file simultaneous letter briefs by January 16, 2005 and may file simultaneous reply letter briefs by January 23, 2005. Werdegar, J., was did not participate. |
| Jan 12 2005 | Letter brief filed by Attorney General. |
| Jan 12 2005 | Case ordered on calendar 2/8/05 @ 2pm - Sacramento |
| Jan 18 2005 | Letter brief filed by counsel for petitioner. |
| Jan 21 2005 | Filed: Reply to letter brief - by petitioner. |
| Feb 8 2005 | Cause argued and submitted |
| May 9 2005 | Opinion filed: Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Majority Opinion by Werdegar, J. joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Moreno, JJ. Dissent Opinion by Chin, J. joined by Baxter & Brown, JJ. |
| May 20 2005 | Rehearing petition filed by respondent |
| May 24 2005 | Time extended to consider modification or rehearing The time for granting or denying rehearing is extended to and including August 5, 2005, the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first. |
| May 25 2005 | Filed: letter dated 5/24/05 from Department of Corrections. |
| Jul 27 2005 | Rehearing denied Requests for modification denied. Chin, J., is of the opinion the petition should be granted. |
| Jul 27 2005 | Remittitur issued (criminal case) |
| Aug 3 2005 | Received: Receipt for Remittitur |
| Nov 16 2005 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Rankin - Appeallate Defenders, Inc |
| Briefs | |
| Mar 19 2003 | Opening brief on the merits filed |
| Jun 17 2003 | Answer brief on the merits filed |
