Filed 5/23/24 P. v. Cornett CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLIN EDWARD CORNETT,

D efendant and Appellant. D082432

(Super. Ct. No. SCD291704)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Timothy R. Walsh, Judge. Remanded with directions.

Sheila O’Connor , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defe ndant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant

Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General,

Collette C. Cavalier and Kathryn Kirschbaum , Deputy Attorneys General, for

Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEM ORANDUM OPINION

Car l in Edward Cornett appeals a judgment denying his request for

37 days of custody credit for his time spent on GPS

- monitored home2

detention. Cornett challenges the denial on two grounds. First, he claims his

supervised release complie s with Penal Code s ection s 2900.5 and 1203.018,
which govern eligibility for custody credit. Second , Cornett argues that

awarding custody credit to individuals participating in section 1203.018
electronic monitoring programs

, while denying credit to persons like him

subject to similar monitoring

, violates his right to equal protection

. The
Attorney General concedes that the denial of custody credit here violate s Cornett’s right to equal protection. R esolv ing this matter by memorandum

opinion ( s e e generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847) , w e accept
the Attorney General’s concession and remand to the trial court to grant

Cornett the additional 37 days of custody credit s

. I n April 2023, Cornett pled guilty to murder. Before sentencing, the

trial court released Cornett on his own recognizance for medical reason s but

imposed numerous restrictions

. Cornett was required to wear a n ankle

track ing device

, remain in San Diego County , adhere to a curfew , and consent

to a Fourth Amendment waiver

. He coul d leave his house for specified

purposes , such as getting groceries or going to medical appointments

. At sentencing, the court awarded Cornett 590 days of custody credit s

for pre

- conviction jailtime

, but it denied his request for custod y credit s for

time on home detention because his particular track ing device was not
authorized as a legal alternative to custody within San Diego County

. Given the Attorney General’s concession , we address only th e equal

protection claim

. An equal protection claim is sub ject to de novo review.
( California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177, 208

. )

T he key inquiry is “ whether the challenged difference in treatment is
adequately justified under the applicable standard of review. ” ( People v.

Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 850

- 851.) When neither a suspect3

classification nor a fundamental right is at issue, the differential treatment

need only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. ( People v.

Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 288

. )

Like t he parties, w e discern no rational basis for denying Cornett

custody credit while granting credit to participants subject to similar custody

conditions in the statutory electronic monitoring program. ( See People v.

Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 10 91

. ) Penal Code section 2900.5

, subdivision (a) entitles defendants to credit for “days served in home

detention pursuant to .

. . Section 1203.018.” Section 1203.018 establishes an electronic monitoring program offered to inmates released “in lieu of bail”

who abide by a curfew , allow probation officers into their home, and wear a
tracking device. ( 

### § 1203.018, subd s

. (a) & (d)(1)

- (3).) Although Cornett was

not released “in lieu of bail,” he

, l ike statutory electronic monitoring program

participants, had t o adhere to a curfew

, consent to a Fourth Amendment

waiver , and wear a tracking device

. Th at Cornett’s particular tracking device

is not a recognized legal alternative to custod y does not change the
fundamentally custodial nature of Cornett’s release. We thus conclude denial
of Cornett’s request for home monitoring custody credits violated his right to

equal protection

.4 DISPOSITION

We remand to the trial court to (1) amend the June 22

, 2023 abstract of

judgment to grant Cornett 37 days of custody cr edit s for his time spent on

electronically monitored home detention, and (2) forward a certified copy of
the amended abstract of judgment to the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.