People v. Cruz
207 Cal. App. 4th 664
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- 2011 Realignment Act (Stats. 2011, ch. 15) realigned sentencing/supervision to counties, with prospective application to sentences on or after Oct. 1, 2011.
- Cruz was convicted March 25, 2011 of transporting methamphetamine and possessing meth for sale; sentenced to four years with restitution fine, parole revocation restitution fine stayed.
- Act added § 17.5 outlining community-based corrections and saved its effect to counties, including county jail sentencing under § 1170(h).
- Under § 1170(h), the Act preserves certain terms, hybrids, and reduces parole/postrelease supervision for county jail sentences, without changing underlying term lengths.
- Question on appeal: whether pre-Oct 1, 2011 sentences pending appeal may be resentenced under the Act; court holds no, applying prospectively only.
- Court uses Estrada, Floyd, and equal protection principles to evaluate prospective application and rational basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Act’s prospective application apply to pre-October 1, 2011 sentences pending appeal? | Miramontes Cruz argues retroactive relief is required. | State contends the saving clause confines changes to those sentenced on or after Oct. 1, 2011. | Prospective application governs; no remand for resentencing. |
| Is prospective application of § 1170(h)(6) constitutional under Estrada and Floyd? | Estrada would require retroactive application without saving clause forcing relief. | Saving clause and postponement indicate legislative intent for prospective application. | Constitutional; saving clause confirms prospective application. |
| Does the Act violate equal protection by creating pre/post-October 1, 2011 classes of offenders? | Two classes are similarly situated and treated differently without compelling interest. | Rational basis with legitimate public safety/recidivism goals; no fundamental liberty interest implicated. | No equal protection violation; rational-basis review applied. |
| What level of scrutiny applies to the equal protection challenge here? | Strict scrutiny because of liberty/fundamental rights concerns. | No fundamental right implicated; rational basis suffices. | Rational basis review applied; statute upheld. |
| Does the defendant have a fundamental interest in serving the sentence in county jail rather than state prison? | County jail vs. state prison affects liberty and safeguards. | No inherent fundamental right to a specific custody setting or hybrid sentencing. | No fundamental interest; rational basis justification stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (retroactivity hinges on legislative intent; saving clause favored prospective application here)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003) (prospective application upheld; saving clause and postponement indicate transition orderly)
- People v. Goslar, 70 Cal.App.4th 270 (Cal. App. 1999) (three levels of equal protection scrutiny framework)
- People v. Romo, 14 Cal.3d 189 (Cal. 1975) (equal protection requires substantial relevance of classification to purpose)
- People v. Olivas, 17 Cal.3d 236 (Cal. 1976) (liberty interests and scrutiny levels for penal provisions)
- People v. Sage, 26 Cal.3d 498 (Cal. 1980) (routine ministerial function for recomputation of time credits; remand not required)
- In re Kapperman, 11 Cal.3d 542 (Cal. 1974) (presentence custody credits; implications for negotiated pleas)