People v. Guillen
151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 514
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Realignment Act 2011 directs certain felons to local custody rather than state prison; issue is Guillen's custody designation.
- Guillen pled to driving with 0.08%+ BAC (count 2) and giving false information to a police officer (count 3); admitted a prior 0.08% BAC felony and prior prison term.
- Trial court sentenced to two years in state prison for count 2, plus a consecutive one-year term for the prior prison term; count 3 180 days concurrent; fines and presentence custody credits awarded; remaining charges dismissed.
- Guillen appeals challenging whether he should have been committed to county jail under realignment.
- He contends realignment and Penal Code provisions allow county jail under §17.5(a)(5) and §1170(h) based on related sections like §42000, arguing §23550.5 does not expressly refer to §1170(h).
- Appellate court affirms state-prison commitment, rejecting Guillen's statutory construction theory and clarifying the interaction of §23550.5 with realignment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guillen is eligible for county jail under realignment. | Guillen (Guillen) argues §17.5(a)(5) and §1170(h) grant county-jail sentencing. | Guillen contends §42000 and §23550.5 imply realignment applicability, despite §23550.5 not stating §1170(h). | Guillen is not eligible; §23550.5 lacks §1170(h) reference, so realignment does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cruz, 207 Cal.App.4th 664 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2012) (realignment eligibility governs custody disposition)
- People v. Palacios, 41 Cal.4th 720 (Cal. 2007) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle in statutory interpretation)
- People v. Quiroz, 199 Cal.App.4th 1123 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (harmonization of statutes and realignment context)
- In re Connie M., 176 Cal.App.3d 1225 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1986) (statutory interpretation guiding harmonization)