# People v. Caddick

> California Court of Appeal · September 14, 1984 · 160 Cal. App. 3d 46

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726554

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RALPH CADDICK, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** September 14, 1984
- **Citations:** 160 Cal. App. 3d 46; 206 Cal. Rptr. 454; 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2519
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blease
- **Judges:** Carr, Blease
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726554

## Opinion text

BLEASE, Acting P. J.
I concur in the result.
I concur in the result because the defendant was subject to the same criteria for credit in prison as in jail. So far as the record in this case is concerned, the defendant was not assigned to and did not do any work as a pretrial detainee. It is conceded that he received the one-third credit provided by Penal Code section 4019. That is the identical credit he would receive under Penal Code section 2933 as a prison inmate for whom no work is available. It provides: if a prison inmate “is . . . not assigned to a full-time [work] assignment . . . [he] shall receive no less credit than is provided under Section 2931,” to wit a maximum one-third credit. Thus, a pretrial detainee without work is entitled to the same credit as a prison inmate without work. That, of course, poses no equal protection problem.
I do note an odd twist in the strands of equal protection theory. In People v. Saffell (1979) 25 Cal.3d 223 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 599 P.2d 92 ] the (MDSO) inmate was not entitled to equal credit because he was subject to *55 rehabilitation. In this case the majority say the pretrial detainee is not entitled to equal credit because he is not subject to rehabilitation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726554. Public record. Not legal advice.