6/1/2023 0 Comments No sound while using worktime2 covers conduct by certain prisoners confined in county jails or similar institutions. 1 covers conduct after sentence to state prison, whereas section 4019 fn. Penal Code sections 29 are the primary statutory authorities for credits for work performed and good conduct in penal institutions. Petitioner contends that under equal protection principles he is entitled to the same good time/work time credits for time spent in CRC as he and other inmates are awarded for time in state prison or county facilities. On August 6, 1981, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied that motion on June 22, 1981. motion in the trial court on or about June 5, 1981, to obtain good time/work time credits for the period of time he spent at CRC. He was received at NRC-CMF on April 9, 1981. Petitioner was ultimately found unsuitable for the civil addict program at CRC and was returned to Contra Costa County Superior Court on April 1, 1981, where he was sentenced to state prison for two years. On July 25, 1980, petitioner was received by the California Department of Corrections, Northern Reception Center (hereafter NRC-CMF) and was then transferred to the California Rehabilitation Center (hereafter CRC) on August 1, 1980. On the same day the trial court instituted civil addict proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051. Code, § 459) and possession of a deadly weapon (Pen. On July 21, 1980, petitioner pleaded guilty in Contra Costa County Superior Court to four counts of forgery (Pen. The parties agree to the following statement of facts: We have concluded that he is entitled to the credit he seeks. by an inmate, seeks good time/work time for a period of some eight months during which he was committed to California Rehabilitation Center under civil addict proceedings (Welf. Mihara, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent. Stein, Assistant Attorney General, Ann K. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William D. George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Winslow, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Winslow & Schmidt for Petitioner. J., with Feinberg, J., and Stern, J., concurring.)Ĭharles Martin, Jr., in pro. In re CHARLES MARTIN, JR., on Habeas Corpus.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |