People v. Garcia CA2/2
B267403
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 28, 2016Background
- In 2013 Garcia pled to felony petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code § 666) and received a 32‑month prison sentence.
- Under Proposition 47 she petitioned to redesignate the felony as a misdemeanor; in May 2015 the trial court granted the petition and resentenced her to 365 days in jail (offset by custody credits) followed by one year of parole.
- The court later corrected the misdemeanor label to petty theft with a prior and calculated Garcia’s custody credits as 508 days (254 actual + 254 conduct), creating 143 days of excess credit beyond the 365‑day jail term.
- Garcia moved to correct sentence, asserting (1) the maximum jail for shoplifting is six months and (2) the 143 excess custody days should reduce her one‑year parole term.
- The trial court increased credited days to 508 but refused to apply the 143 excess days to shorten the parole term; Garcia appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excess custody credits may be applied to reduce the one‑year parole term imposed under Prop. 47 | The People argued the appeal was procedurally improper but otherwise relied on controlling law that parole need not be reduced by custody credits | Garcia argued her “credit for time served” under § 1170.18(d) and § 2900.5 requires applying excess custody credits against the one‑year parole term | The court affirmed: excess custody credits do not reduce the one‑year parole term under Prop. 47; appeal is properly before the court because the original sentence was unauthorized and corrected by the trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (2016) (Supreme Court held Prop. 47 does not require applying excess custody credits against the one‑year parole term)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (2015) (standard of independent review for statutory interpretation issues)
- People v. Martinez, 240 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2015) (trial court may correct an unauthorized sentence when mistake is brought to its attention)
- People v. Mendez, 209 Cal.App.4th 32 (2012) (order denying motion to modify judgment generally not appealable)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (1994) (unauthorized sentence occurs where court violates mandatory confinement provisions)
- In re Sosa, 102 Cal.App.3d 1002 (1980) (earlier case holding excess custody credits could be applied to parole terms)