1 

Filed 3/6/13 P. v. Williams CA1/5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FIVE 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

HEATHER AMY WILLIAMS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 A134255 

 A135662 

 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. 

 Nos. SCR-460189, SCR-467468 

 & SCR-606017) 

 Appellant Heather Amy Williams challenges the calculation of postsentence 

conduct credits she was awarded under Penal Code section 4019. We affirm. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On November 22, 2011, the Sonoma County Superior Court sentenced appellant 

on three separate cases to an aggregate county jail term of five years comprised of an 

upper term of three years for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 

§ 10851, subd. (a)) in case No. SCR-460189 and three consecutive eight-month 

subordinate terms for unlawful possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11377, subd. (a)) in case No. SCR-460189, receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, 

subd. (a)) in case No. SCR-467468, and second degree commercial burglary (id., § 459) 

in case No. SCR-606017. Pursuant to the recently enacted realignment legislation, the 

court ordered appellant to serve her sentence in county jail (id., § 1170, subd. (h)). 
2 

 At the time of sentencing, appellant argued for additional presentence credit, but 

the trial court denied that request.1 A notice of appeal (A134255) from the sentence was 

filed on January 3, 2012. 

 Following appellant’s commitment to county jail, the sheriff calculated appellant’s 

Penal Code section 4019 postsentence conduct credits. Appellant challenged the 

calculation on April 12, 2012, by moving in the trial court for additional presentence and 

postsentence credits. Both parties agree the trial court denied the motion for presentence 

credits, but did not rule on the challenge to the postsentence credits calculated by the 

sheriff. Appellant separately appealed this ruling (A135662). On June 29, 2012, this 

court ordered both appeals consolidated. 

ANALYSIS 

 Appellant challenges her award of postsentence credits on both statutory and 

constitutional grounds. “In sum, pursuant to [Penal Code] section 4019 as well as 

established state and federal constitutional principles of equal protection, the [s]heriff 

erroneously calculated appellant’s release date by refusing to award her day-for-day 

postsentence credits.” However, in these direct appeals of trial court rulings in 

appellant’s criminal cases, we lack jurisdiction to rule on this matter. As appellant 

concedes, she has been released from custody and the issue is moot. Appellant argues we 

should exercise our discretion to rule on the issue despite its mootness. We decline to do 

so. When “an otherwise moot case presents important issues that are ‘capable of 

repetition, yet evading review’ [citations] we may resolve the issues.” (Thompson v. 

Department of Corrections (2001) 25 Cal.4th 117, 122, italics added); accord, People v. 

Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 925-926, fn.1.) We agree that the issue is an important 

one and may arise with some frequency, but it is not an issue likely to evade review. 

Appellant’s claim is mooted solely because she had accumulated over 1,400 days of 

 

1 Based on an intervening decision by the California Supreme Court in People v. Brown 

(2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 (Brown), appellant no longer challenges the propriety of her 

presentence credits. 
3 

presentence custody and conduct credits. Numerous cases should present the opportunity 

to rule on this issue before the expiration of the sentence imposed.2

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 

 SIMONS, Acting P.J. 

We concur. 

 

NEEDHAM, J. 

 

BRUINIERS, J. 

 

2 Given our resolution of this matter, appellant’s October 2, 2012 request for judicial 

notice is denied because the information is irrelevant.