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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

Defendant 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 

Defendant 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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carlin Edward Cornett appeals a judgment denying his request for 

37 days of custody credit for his time spent on GPS-monitored home 
2

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

supervised release complies with Penal Code sections 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 violates

Cornett’s right to equal protection. Resolving this matter by memorandum 

opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we accept 

the Attorney General’s concession and remand to the trial court to grant 

Cornett the additional 37 days of custody credits.

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

trial court released Cornett on his own recognizance for medical reasons but 

imposed numerous restrictions. Cornett was required to wear an ankle

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

to a Fourth Amendment waiver. He could 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 credits

for pre-conviction jailtime, but it denied his request for custody credits for 

time on home detention because his particular tracking device was not 

authorized as a legal alternative to custody within San Diego County. 

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

protection claim. An equal protection claim is subject to de novo review. 

(California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177, 208.) 

The 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 suspect 
3

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 the parties, we 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, 1091.) 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, subds. (a) & (d)(1)-(3).) Although Cornett was 

not released “in lieu of bail,” he, like statutory electronic monitoring program 

participants, had to adhere to a curfew, consent to a Fourth Amendment 

waiver, and wear a tracking device. That Cornett’s particular tracking device

is not a recognized legal alternative to custody 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 credits 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.