57 Cal.App.5th 136
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2013 Patty Ann Lamoureux was convicted of conspiracy and felony murder and initially sentenced to life without parole; after appellate proceedings she was resentenced to 25 years to life and later to 6 years for conspiracy following vacatur of the murder theory under SB 1437.
- Lamoureux petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.95 (SB 1437); the trial court vacated her felony murder conviction, resentenced her to six years, and found she had 3,590 custody credits, exceeding the new 2,190‑day term.
- Because credits exceeded the new term, the court deemed the custodial sentence served but, under § 1170.95(g), ordered Lamoureux subject to parole supervision for up to three years and declined to apply excess custody credits to offset parole.
- The court again imposed a $560 restitution fine; Lamoureux challenged (1) the court’s refusal to apply excess custody credits against parole, (2) the restitution fine computation and application of credits against it, and (3) presentence conduct credit calculations.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the parole decision, deemed Lamoureux’s $560 restitution fine satisfied in full by applying excess custody credits under the version of § 2900.5 in effect at the time of her offense, found the restitution‑fine computation claim forfeited, and held the presentence‑credit dispute moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lamoureux) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excess custody credits must be applied to reduce or eliminate parole imposed under § 1170.95(g) | The court may impose parole up to three years; credits need not automatically offset parole | Excess custody credits should offset parole so parole cannot be imposed when credits cover it | Court: No automatic offset required; trial court has discretion to impose up to 3 years parole upon release (Morales/Wilson reasoning adopted) |
| Whether the trial court used a rational method in setting the $560 restitution fine | Fine within statutory maximum; no timely objection | Fine lacked rational computation and may violate ex post facto principles | Court: Lamoureux forfeited the claim by failing to object; appellate record does not show ineffective assistance |
| Whether excess custody credits must be applied to offset the restitution fine | Credits may offset fines under § 2900.5 as in effect at time of offense | Credits should offset the restitution fine entirely (and do) | Court: People conceded; under § 2900.5 (2011) excess custody credits must be applied; $560 fine satisfied in full |
| Entitlement to presentence conduct credits after murder vacatur | Issue is moot because Lamoureux is released and credits would not change parole or monetary obligations | Vacatur of murder conviction entitles her to conduct credits formerly denied under § 2933.2(c) | Court: Moot; no effective relief would follow; presentence‑credit claim dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (California Supreme Court) (held that excess custody credits do not automatically reduce parole under Proposition 47)
- People v. Wilson, 53 Cal.App.5th 42 (Court of Appeal) (construed § 1170.95(g) and held courts need not mechanically apply excess credits to offset parole)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (California Supreme Court) (presumption that Legislature intends consistent construction with prior statutes/cases)
- People v. Morris, 242 Cal.App.4th 94 (Court of Appeal) (applied excess custody credits under historical § 2900.5 to satisfy restitution fines)
- People v. Pinon, 6 Cal.App.5th 956 (Court of Appeal) (failure to object in trial court forfeits appellate challenge to fine)
- In re Lira, 58 Cal.4th 573 (California Supreme Court) (principle that parole term begins after release from prison)