People v. Lara
54 Cal. 4th 896
Cal.2012Background
- Legislation (former § 4019) increased pre-sentence conduct credits for local custody prisoners beginning Jan. 25, 2010, but barred credits for those with sex offender status, serious felonies, or prior serious/violent felonies.
- Defendant Lara assaulted a man outside a Sunnyvale bar (Feb. 11, 2010), pled no contest to an assault count, and admitted probation violations.
- Plea bargain: the court struck the allegation of prior first-degree burglary (a serious offense) and a three-year enhancement, avoiding Three Strikes sentencing, yielding a two-year prison term.
- Question: did Lara’s stricken burglary conviction nevertheless disqualify him from day-for-day credits under former § 4019, and could the court ignore the disqualifying facts under § 1385 to maximize credits?
- Court of Appeal reversed, directing the trial court to decide under § 1385 to maximize credits despite the stricken prior; the case proceeded to the Supreme Court for review.
- Supreme Court held § 1385 does not authorize striking or ignoring historical disqualifying facts for credits; but due process requires notice and a defense on credit eligibility; the case is remanded with the appellate judgment reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1385 authorizes disregard of disqualifying facts for credits | People contends court may strike disqualifying facts to maximize credits under § 1385. | Lara argues § 1385 permits disregarding disqualifying facts to increase credits. | No; § 1385 does not authorize disregarding such facts. |
| Is pleading or proof of credit disabilities required under § 1385 | People argues pleading not required to limit credits. | Lara argues credit disabilities must be pled and proved. | No formal pleading/proof required; due process adequate with notice. |
| Are credit-disabling facts within the reach of Ford/Lo Cicero line of cases | People would analogize to increased punishment cases requiring pleading. | Lara relies on Ford/Lo Cicero to require pleading for disqualifying facts. | Credit-disabling facts are not traditional sentencing factors; Ford/Lo Cicero not extendable here. |
| Does the ex post facto or equal protection concern apply given prospective credit changes | Credit-limiting facts could raise ex post facto issues if retroactive. | Brown-style rationale supports prospective application for incentive purposes. | Credit-limiting facts do not trigger ex post facto here; law remains prospective for new credits. |
| What is the proper disposition when appellate error on credits is involved | Appellate court erred by directing maximum credits allocation. | N/A ( Lara consistent with due process concerns). | Court of Appeal's judgment reversed; trial court’s credit determination upheld (116 days). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (discusses striking allegations to avoid enhancements)
- People v. Burke, 47 Cal.2d 45 (1956) (allowing strike of sentencing-related allegations)
- People v. Thomas, 35 Cal.4th 635 (2005) (limits of 1385 to individual charges and allegations)
- In re Varnell, 30 Cal.4th 1132 (2003) (distinguishes sentencing factors from other disability rules)
- People v. Fitzgerald, 59 Cal.App.4th 932 (1997) (notice that credit consequences need not be pled)
- People v. Garcia, 121 Cal.App.4th 271 (2004) (whether a prior offense is 'violent' for credit limits is a sentencing function)
- Ford v. Commonwealth, 60 Cal.2d 772 (1964) (pleading and proof required for increased penalties)
- LoCicero, 71 Cal.2d 1186 (1969) (requirement of pleading/proving prior narcotics convictions for probation denial)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury determination required for any fact increasing penalty beyond maximum)
- Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (2012) (prospective application of credit-ameliorating laws to incentives)