People v. Espinoza
226 Cal. App. 4th 635
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Espinoza, a 60-year-old career criminal, challenged a PRCS order after realignment resentencing under 2013 terms.
- Original 1999 sentence: three strikes, 25 years to life, for burglary and related offenses.
- Realigned in 2013: resentenced to seven years four months, with mandatory postrelease community supervision (PRCS).
- PRCS is controlled by Penal Code sections 3451 and 3456; it does not function as parole and is supervised locally.
- Appellant argued PRCS is ex post facto and violates equal protection or due process; trial court rejected these contentions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRCS violates ex post facto guarantees | Espinoza argues PRCS increases punishment after 1999. | Espinoza says PRCS is not punishment and realignment reduces term; no ex post facto violation. | No ex post facto violation; PRCS not part of term of imprisonment. |
| Whether the equal protection clause bars PRCS for older pre-2011 offenders | Espinoza claims disparate treatment compared with pre-Realignment credit rules. | Timing of statute application does not violate equal protection; no selective advantage claimed. | No equal protection violation; timing distinction permissible. |
| Whether excess presentence credits affect PRCS obligations | Credits should reduce custody/PRCS impact. | Credits reduce only the term of imprisonment, not PRCS obligations. | Excess credits do not negate PRCS; term of imprisonment is separate from PRCS. |
| Whether PRCS is constitutionally permissible given statutory scheme | PRCS resembles parole and could be punitive. | PRCS is non-punitive supervision under a new realignment framework. | PRCS constitutionally permissible; not an invalid punitive scheme. |
| Whether realignment and PRCS conflicts can be reconciled under statutory language | Potential conflicts between schemes could require rewrite. | Notwithstanding clause broad enough to avoid conflict; realignment controls. | Notwithstanding language resolves conflicts; PRCS mandated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sosa, 102 Cal.App.3d 1002 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 1980) (excess credits deducted from parole period under 2900.5(c))
- In re Lira, 58 Cal.4th 573 (Cal. 2014) (parole vs. PRCS jurisdiction and structure distinguished)
- People v. Cruz, 207 Cal.App.4th 664 (Cal. App. 2012) (validity of realignment and PRCS under 1170(h)(6))
- In re Ramirez, 39 Cal.3d 931 (Cal. 1985) (ex post facto considerations in reduced sentencing schemes)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (construction of statutes with broad applicability; not unconstitutional when applied)