People v. Butler
243 Cal. App. 4th 1346
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Samuel Butler was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor false imprisonment (Pen. Code § 236) and felony resisting an executive officer (§ 69) for an April 13, 2014 incident involving his estranged partner; he was sentenced on September 4, 2014 to concurrent county jail terms totaling two years.
- At sentencing the court imposed a $300 restitution fine under Pen. Code § 1202.4(b)(1) and orally imposed and stayed an additional $300 revocation restitution fine under Pen. Code § 1202.45.
- The custodial facts: officers found defendant physically restraining the victim on a bed; the victim and neighbors reported she was being held and pleading to be released; officers struggled to remove defendant and defendant resisted and grabbed officers’ radios.
- The legal question turned on whether any form of § 1202.45 revocation restitution fine (parole, postrelease community supervision, or mandatory supervision) could lawfully be imposed where defendant received only a county jail sentence and no period of mandatory supervision was suspended into effect.
- The Court concluded none of the § 1202.45 subdivision (a) or (b) revocation fines applied because (a) parole-related fines apply only to persons sentenced to prison and subject to parole, (b) postrelease community supervision under § 3451 applies only to persons released from prison, and (c) mandatory supervision under § 1170(h)(5) arises only when the court suspends a portion of the jail term (a blended/split sentence), which did not occur here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 1202.45 parole revocation restitution fine (subd. (a)) could be imposed when defendant received a county jail term | Court/prosecution treated the additional $300 as a § 1202.45 revocation fine and imposed it | Butler argued § 1202.45(a) applies only when sentence includes a period of parole (i.e., prison sentences) | Reversed — § 1202.45(a) inapplicable: defendant was not sentenced to prison and not subject to parole supervision |
| Whether a § 1202.45 postrelease community supervision revocation fine (subd. (b) re: § 3451) could be imposed for a county jail sentence | Court imposed/stayed revocation fine without indicating a § 3451 postrelease supervision period | Butler argued § 3451 postrelease community supervision applies only to those released from prison, not county jail inmates | Reversed — § 1202.45(b) postrelease fine cannot be imposed because § 3451 applies only to persons released from prison |
| Whether a § 1202.45 mandatory supervision revocation fine (subd. (b) re: § 1170(h)(5)) could be imposed absent a suspended portion of the jail term | Court imposed/stayed revocation fine though no portion of the term was suspended | Butler argued mandatory supervision attaches only when the court suspends part of the sentence under § 1170(h)(5), which did not happen here | Reversed — mandatory supervision and its revocation fine cannot be imposed because no portion of the county jail term was suspended; no blended/split sentence was imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Armogeda, 233 Cal.App.4th 428 (clarifying § 1202.45 parole fines apply only when sentence includes parole)
- People v. Jones, 231 Cal.App.4th 1257 (same principle — parole-related fines limited to prison sentences)
- People v. Cruz, 207 Cal.App.4th 664 (explaining § 3451 postrelease community supervision relates to prisoners released from prison and hybrid/split sentencing context)
- People v. Espinoza, 226 Cal.App.4th 635 (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation lacks jurisdiction over county jail sentences)
- People v. Camp, 233 Cal.App.4th 461 (discussing hybrid/split sentences and mandatory supervision under § 1170(h)(5))