People v. Carranza
JAD16-09
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Seven defendants pled no contest to various misdemeanors in early 2016 and were placed on probation with fines, penalty assessments, and limited custody credits awarded for time served pretrial.
- Assembly Bill 1375 (effective Jan. 1, 2016) raised the minimum custody-credit value from $30 to $125 per day but did not change statutory language that credits be applied to "any fine, including, but not limited to, base fines."
- Trial courts applied the $125/day credits to the total fines (base fines plus penalty assessments) using the McGarry proportional allocation method, yielding smaller reductions and more custody/community-service days than if credits applied only to base fines.
- Defendants argued AB 1375 required credits be applied only to base fines; courts rejected that view and used the McGarry method.
- The Legislature later enacted AB 2839 (signed Sept. 28, 2016) amending Penal Code §§1205 and 2900.5 to require that custody credits be applied solely to the base fine and to reduce penalty assessments proportionally if the base fine is satisfied by credits; the legislative history indicated this change was intended to correct courts’ post-AB 1375 practice.
- The appellate court held AB 1375, as written, required applying credits to total fines (McGarry), but because AB 2839 lessened punishment and legislative history showed retroactive intent, AB 2839 applies retroactively to defendants sentenced after Jan. 1, 2016 but before AB 2839 was signed; judgments were reversed and remanded for recalculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AB 1375 required custody credits to be applied only to base fines | AB 1375’s plain text (and statutes) require credits apply to all fines, including penalty assessments | Credits should be computed only against base fines, eliminating penalty assessments | Held AB 1375’s text and existing law (McGarry) require credits be applied to total fines (base + assessments) |
| Whether trial courts correctly applied McGarry method under AB 1375 | Courts followed McGarry proportional allocation; this is binding | Trial courts should have applied credits only to base fines per defendants’ reading | Held McGarry remains controlling; courts’ use of proportional allocation was correct under AB 1375 |
| Whether AB 2839’s amendments (apply credits to base fine only) apply retroactively | People argued amendments should not apply retroactively | Defendants argued AB 2839 should apply retroactively, reducing punishment for those sentenced in the interim | Held AB 2839 was intended to remedy misapplication, lessens punishment, and applies retroactively under In re Estrada; credits must be recalculated accordingly |
| Constitutional objections (separation of powers; cruel/unusual) | People: statutes and construction are constitutional; separation of powers not implicated | Defendants claimed judicial interpretation encroaches on legislature and may be cruel/unusual as applied | Held no separation-of-powers violation; facial Eighth Amendment challenge rejected; as-applied cruel/unusual claim forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McGarry, 96 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (courts must allocate custody-credit value proportionally across total fine, including penalty assessments)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative criminal statutes presumed retroactive absent contrary intent)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (discusses limits of Estrada and distinguishes conduct credits from custody credits)
- People v. Robinson, 209 Cal.App.4th 401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (holds “fine” in §2900.5 includes state and county penalty assessments)
- People v. Mendoza, 62 Cal.4th 856 (Cal. 2016) (Eighth Amendment proportionality framework referenced)