Filed 7/3/13 P. v. Koontz CA2/6 

Opinion following remand from Supreme Court 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

TREVOR LEE KOONTZ, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B224697 

2d Crim. No. B224701 

(Super. Ct. No. 2009029278 ) 

(Super. Ct. No. 2009002554) 

(Ventura County) 

ON REMAND 

 

 This case is before us on remand from the California Supreme Court to 

reconsider the cause in light of People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 and People v. Lara 

(2012) 54 Cal.4th 896. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d). Having read and considered the 

supplemental briefs, we vacate our prior decision and conclude that appellant is not entitled 

to enhanced conduct credits under former Penal Code section 4019 which was in effect on 

January 25, 2010.1 (Stats. 2009, 3d Ex.Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 28, § 50.) 

Facts and Procedural History 

 In exchange for an indicated three-year sentence, Trevor Lee Koontz pled 

guilty in case number 2009029278 to felony child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. 

(a)), and admitted a prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1) & (e)(1); 1170.12, 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 
2

subds. (a)(1) & (c)(1)) and admitted suffering two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). 

The trial court struck the prior serious felony conviction and a prior prison term. On March 

16, 2010, it sentenced appellant to three years state prison. The court awarded 219 days 

actual credit plus 108 days conduct credit (§ 4019, subds. (b)(2) & (c)(2)) but ruled that 

appellant was not eligible to receive one-for-one conduct credits (an additional 108 days 

conduct credit) due to the prior serious felony strike conviction.2 

 Appellant argued that the order striking the prior conviction entitled him to 

"one-for-one credits under PC 4019, as it's currently written." Denying the request, the trial 

court stated: "I did take a look at the Code section [§ 4019] again. If it satisfies you, I will 

confess . . . that it continues to be subject to interpretation . . . , but that's how I read the 

Code, sir." 

Former Section 4019 

 Effective January 25, 2010, section 4019 was amended to provide that certain 

defendants may earn presentence credit at the rate of two days for every two days in 

custody, commonly referred to as "one-for-one credits." The Legislature said: "It is the 

intent of the Legislature that if all days are earned under this section, a term of four days 

will be deemed to have been served for every two days spent in actual custody, except that a 

term of six days will be deemed to have been served for every four days spent in actual 

custody for persons described in paragraph (a) of subdivision (b) or (c)." Thereafter on 

September 28, 2010, the Legislature deleted "one-for-one credits." (See People v. Brown, 

supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 318, fn. 3 [discussing legislative history].) 

 In People v. Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th 314, our Supreme Court concluded that 

the January 25, 2010 version of section 4019 only applies to time in custody after its 

 

2 Appellant admitted violating probation in a second case (Case No. 2009002554) following 

a plea of guilty to felony child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a)) and possession of a 

controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11377, subd. (a)). At a combined sentencing 

hearing, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced appellant to two years on the child 

endangerment count and a 16 month concurrent term on the controlled substance count, and 

ordered the sentence to be served concurrent with the three year sentence in case number 

2009029278. Appellant appealed from the denial of one-for-one conduct credits in the 

second case (B224701) which was ordered consolidated with this appeal. 
3

operative date. (Id., at p. 322-323.) "To apply former section 4019 prospectively 

necessarily means that prisoners whose custody overlapped the statute's operative date (Jan. 

25, 2010) earn credit at two different rates." (Id., at p. 322.) 

 That is the case here. Appellant served 144 days actual custody in 2009 and 

75 days actual custody in 2010 before he was sentenced to state prison. He is not entitled to 

enhanced one-for-one conduct credits for time in custody before January 25, 2010. (Id., at 

p. 318; see Couzens & Bigelow, Awarding Custody Credits (Feb. 2013) pp. 8-9, available 

online at http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/Credits_Memo.pdf.) 

 The January 25, 2010 version of section 4019 provides that defendants with a 

prior serious or violent felony conviction are not eligible to receive enhanced one-for-one 

conduct credits. (Former § 4019, subds. (b)(2) & (c)(2).) In People v. Lara, supra, 54 

Cal.4th 896, our Supreme Court held that a trial court does not have authority under section 

1385 to disregard historical facts that disqualify a defendant from earning enhanced one-forone conduct credits under former section 4019. (Id., at p. 900.) Appellant has a 

disqualifying 1997 serious felony conviction. The trial court struck the prior serious felony 

conviction under section 1385 to avoid doubling appellant's prison sentence (§ 1170.12, 

subd. (c)(1)) and correctly found that appellant was not entitled to enhanced one-for-one 

conduct credits. (Id., at p. 906.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 YEGAN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P.J. 

 PERREN, J. 

 
4

Bruce Young, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. 

Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka and Lance C. Winters, 

Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Jaime L. Fuster and Baine P. Kerr, Deputy Attorneys 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.