People v. Clytus
209 Cal. App. 4th 1001
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant pleaded no contest in 2010 to unlawfully taking a vehicle and identity theft; sentenced to 3 years 8 months with suspended execution and 3 years probation.
- Probation was revoked in 2011 for violations; court executed the previously suspended sentence.
- Realignment Act (2011) reassigns low-level felony sentencing to county jail rather than state prison for eligible defendants, effective Oct. 1, 2011.
- Question on appeal: whether the Realignment Act prevents a court from ordering the defendant to serve the term in state prison after probation revocation when eligible for county jail.
- Statutory provisions at issue include § 1170(h) and its subsections governing county jail commitments and the prospective application.
- Court held that for sentences executed on or after Oct. 1, 2011 for non-prison-eligible felonies, the court must order county jail confinement; prison commitment is not authorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Realignment require county jail, not prison, for post- Oct 1, 2011 executions? | People: it can still order prison if consistent with prior sentencing framework. | Clytus: likely confined to county jail under h(2) due to Realignment. | Yes; county jail commitment required for eligible felonies after Oct 1, 2011. |
| Does Howard govern whether a suspended sentence may be imprisoned after Realignment? | Howard controls modification of suspended sentences regardless of Realignment. | Howard is inapplicable to Realignment’s new framework and timing. | Howard does not control this Realignment context; statute governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 1997) (suspended sentence cannot be modified post-revocation; finality rule)
- Barnes v. Department of Corrections, 74 Cal.App.4th 126 (Cal. App. 1999) (statutory interpretation; realignment context)
- S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti, 39 Cal.4th 374 (Cal. 2006) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (regarding statutory construction and intent)
- Bosworth v. Whitmore, 135 Cal.App.4th 536 (Cal. App. 2006) (appellate treatment of Realignment issues)
- People v. Chagolla, Cal. App. 3d 1045 (Cal. App. 1984) (sentence imposed and suspended; jurisdictional limits)