22 Cal. App. 5th 1061
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Garcia pled guilty in 2015 to felony vehicle theft and evading, was placed on 36-month probation; probation later revoked and he served two years in prison.
- Released on March 30, 2016, Garcia was placed on Postrelease Community Supervision (PRCS).
- While on PRCS, Garcia was convicted of carjacking in a separate case (No. 2016017314) and sentenced to four years in prison on April 18, 2017.
- Ventura County petitioned to revoke Garcia's PRCS for absconding; on April 25, 2017 the trial court found a PRCS violation and ordered 180 days county confinement.
- The trial court ordered the 180-day PRCS confinement to run consecutively to the four-year sentence in the separate carjacking case.
- On appeal the court considered whether a county jail confinement imposed for a PRCS violation may be ordered to run consecutively to a determinate sentence in another criminal case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PRCS revocation confinement (max 180 days) can run consecutively to a determinate sentence in another case | Garcia: such consecutive ordering is unauthorized because PRCS confinement is distinct from a criminal sentence; consecutive prison/PRCS stacking is improper | People: conceded court lacked authority (also agreed with Garcia) | Court held the trial court lacked authority to impose PRCS confinement consecutive to a determinate sentence; consecutive portion stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gutierrez, 245 Cal.App.4th 393 (2016) (describing PRCS as similar to parole and noting shared maximum 180-day confinement)
- People v. Mathews, 102 Cal.App.3d 704 (1980) (parole revocation confinement cannot be ordered to run consecutively to a determinate sentence)
- People v. Espinoza, 99 Cal.App.3d 59 (1979) (interpreting limits on consecutive sentences relative to parole revocation confinement)
- People v. Adrian, 191 Cal.App.3d 868 (1987) (distinguishing parole revocation from traditional sentencing)
- People v. Boney, 136 Cal.App.3d 744 (1982) (same distinction between revocation confinement and sentencing)
- Hudson v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.5th 1165 (2017) (court may not add provisions to an unambiguous statute)
Disposition: The consecutive portion of the judgment ordering the 180-day PRCS confinement to run consecutive to the four-year determinate sentence is stricken; as modified, the judgment is affirmed.