People v. Isaac
168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Elias Isaac was convicted of felony unlawful possession of a firearm and had a prior prison strike; sentenced in June 2012 to five years in state prison.
- The trial court imposed a $1,200 restitution fine under Penal Code §1202.4 and stayed a matching $1,200 parole revocation restitution fine under §1202.45, payable if parole were revoked.
- After the 2011 Realignment Act, many offenders released from prison serve county-administered postrelease community supervision (PRCS) instead of state parole; defendant fell within Realignment and would be subject to PRCS, not state parole.
- At the time of offense and sentencing, §1202.45 imposed a parole revocation restitution fine only where the sentence included a period of parole and said nothing about PRCS; the statute was later amended (2012 SB 1210) to add a PRCS revocation fine.
- The Attorney General conceded the 2012 amendment could not be applied retroactively (ex post facto) and argued the preexisting §1202.44 (probation revocation fine) could authorize the fine instead.
- The Court of Appeal struck the §1202.45 parole revocation restitution fine, holding no statutory basis then existed to impose a comparable PRCS fine on defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parole revocation restitution fine under §1202.45 could be imposed on an offender subject to postrelease community supervision (PRCS) instead of parole | §1202.45 authorized the fine as imposed; alternatively, §1202.44 (probation revocation fine) supplies authority for an equivalent fine | Realignment made defendant subject to PRCS, not parole; §1202.45 (pre-2012) did not cover PRCS and §1202.44 does not apply to conditional sentences/PRCS | The pre-2012 parole revocation fine under §1202.45 could not be sustained; §1202.44 does not encompass PRCS or conditional sentence for felonies, so the fine was stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cruz, 207 Cal.App.4th 664 (court held defendants subject to community supervision are not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine)
- People v. Samaniego, 172 Cal.App.4th 1148 (parole revocation fine improper where no parole exists)
- People v. Flores, 176 Cal.App.4th 1171 (treating parole-revocation fines as punitive for ex post facto analysis)
- People v. Fandinola, 221 Cal.App.4th 1415 (statutory discussion showing conditional sentence differs from postrelease community supervision)