People v. Cooper

27 Cal. 4th 38, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 219, 37 P.3d 403 (Cal. 2002) · Supreme Court of California · January 14, 2002 · No. S092882

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that Penal Code section 2933.1 limits presentence conduct credits to 15 percent for a defendant convicted of murder, including a defendant sentenced under the 1978 voter-approved version of Penal Code section 190. The court concluded that applying the limitation did not unlawfully amend the Briggs Initiative because the initiative's reference to Penal Code article 2.5 concerned postsentence prison conduct credits and did not specifically address presentence credits. The court reversed the Court of Appeal's ruling on the credits issue and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. Penal Code section 2933.1 applies to limit Cooper's presentence conduct credits to 15 percent of his actual presentence confinement.
  2. Applying section 2933.1's presentence-credit limitation did not constitute an invalid legislative amendment of the Briggs Initiative.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Penal Code section 2933.1's 15 percent limitation on presentence conduct credits applies to a defendant convicted of murder and sentenced under the 1978 version of Penal Code section 190.
  2. Whether applying section 2933.1 to Cooper's sentence constituted an invalid legislative amendment of the voter-approved Briggs Initiative.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (21)

  • People v. Bright, 12 Cal. 4th 652, 662-663 & fn. 7, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 732, 909 P.2d 1354 (1996)(followed)
  • In re Jeanice D., 28 Cal. 3d 210, 219, 168 Cal. Rptr. 455, 617 P.2d 1087 (1980)(followed)
  • In re Oluwa, 207 Cal. App. 3d 439, 255 Cal. Rptr. 35 (1989)(distinguished)
  • People v. Austin, 30 Cal. 3d 155, 163, 178 Cal. Rptr. 312, 636 P.2d 1 (1981)(followed)
  • People v. Buckhalter, 26 Cal. 4th 20, 30-32, 36, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625, 25 P.3d 1103 (2001)(followed)
  • People v. Aguirre, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1138-1141, 1139, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 77 (1997)(followed)
  • People v. Camba, 50 Cal. App. 4th 857, 867, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 907 (1996)(followed)
  • Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc., 32 Cal. 2d 53, 58-59, 195 P.2d 1 (1948)(followed)
  • Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush, 64 Cal. App. 4th 1473, 1485, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342 (1998)(followed)
  • Franchise Tax Bd. v. Cory, 80 Cal. App. 3d 772, 776, 145 Cal. Rptr. 819 (1978)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…