People v. Hutton
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 882
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2016Background
- Defendant Chris Kenneth Hutton was arrested Aug. 27, 2013 for receiving stolen property and later convicted; at sentencing the court found four prior prison-term enhancements true under Penal Code § 667.5(b).
- Earlier in 2013 (Apr. 23), in case BF147747A Hutton pleaded no contest to a felony (possession of a controlled substance) and received a split term under § 1170(h): two years jail custody and two years mandatory supervision; he was released on "sheriff's parole" July 3, 2013.
- At the time of his Aug. 27, 2013 arrest for the instant offense Hutton was on sheriff's parole from BF147747A; he remained in custody from arrest until sentencing in the instant case (Jan. 6, 2014).
- The trial court denied presentence custody credits (finding he was serving the BF147747A custodial term) and imposed a one-year enhancement for the 2013 prior; it struck two older priors and imposed an aggregate 5-year term concurrent with BF147747A.
- On appeal Hutton argued (1) he was entitled to presentence custody credits because he was not "in custody" while on sheriff's parole, and alternatively (2) that the 2013 conviction could not be used as a prior prison term for enhancement because he was still serving that term when the new offense occurred.
- The court of appeal agreed Hutton was entitled to presentence custody credits (total 265 days) but affirmed the imposition of the one-year prior-term enhancement based on the 2013 conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to presentence custody credits under Penal Code § 2900.5 | People: defendant was serving a custodial term (BF147747A) and therefore not entitled to credits | Hutton: release on sheriff's parole meant he was not "in custody" so he is entitled to presentence credits for time detained after arrest | Court: sheriff's parole is not "custody" under § 2900.5(a); Hutton entitled to 133 actual days + 132 conduct days = 265 days credits |
| Characterization of "sheriff's parole" as custody | People: sheriff's parole supervision is equivalent to remaining in custody/mandatory supervision for purposes of credit and prior-term issues | Hutton: parole imposes conditional freedom and less physical restraint, so not custody for credits | Court: supervision by sheriff's parole is less restrictive than confinement; not custody for § 2900.5 credits (citing parole custody precedent) |
| Use of the 2013 BF147747A term as a prior prison term under § 667.5(b) | People: defendant remained in custody/subject to reimprisonment under § 667.5(d), so the prior cannot support an enhancement (argument ultimately poorly framed) | Hutton: if not in custody then the prior cannot qualify and the enhancement must be stricken; alternatively, inconsistent positions by People should preclude enhancement | Court: § 667.5(b) prior-term elements satisfied (physical commitment, service, release); subdivision (d) is a separate "washout" rule and does not preclude using a prior when defendant reoffends on parole and is sentenced concurrently; enhancement affirmed |
| Whether concurrent sentencing for parole revocation and new offense precludes prior-term enhancement | People: (argued confusionarily) subdivision (d) means no prior-term when reoffending on parole | Hutton: concurrent sentencing means prior not complete so enhancement improper | Court: rejects that view; established law (In re Kelly and others) permits use of prior when defendant is concurrently sentenced for new offense and parole revocation; refusing to apply subdivision (d) to defeat enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tenner, 6 Cal.4th 559 (establishes elements for proving completion of a prior prison term)
- In re Kelly, 33 Cal.3d 267 (concurrent sentencing for new offense and parole revocation does not bar use of prior for enhancement)
- People v. Langston, 33 Cal.4th 1237 (related discussion on priors and parole revocation)
- People v. Bruner, 9 Cal.4th 1178 (discusses when presentence credits are unavailable because custody attributable to another offense)
- People v. Kennedy, 209 Cal.App.4th 385 ("but for" causation test for presentence custody credit entitlement)
- People v. Weeks, 224 Cal.App.4th 1045 (prior term not complete when defendant still incarcerated for that prior at time of new offense)
- Charry v. California, 13 F.3d 1386 (parole does not constitute custody for credit purposes)
- People v. Gisbert, 205 Cal.App.4th 277 (discusses § 2900.5 and custody credit principles)