People v. Mora
214 Cal. App. 4th 1477
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mora pleaded no contest to possession of heroin; trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Mora on three years’ probation, and imposed a $200 restitution fine under §1202.4(b).
- In Aug. 2011 Mora admitted probation violations; court sentenced to two years in state prison, suspended execution, and reinstated probation on same terms.
- In Dec. 2011 the court found probation violated again; revoked and reinstated probation with a 90-day jail sentence.
- On May 17, 2012 the court found Mora violated probation, committed her to state prison for two years with 332 days’ credit, and refused to apply Realignment; imposed $240 restitution fine and $240 parole revocation restitution fine.
- Mora argued Realignment should apply to sentences executed after Oct. 1, 2011 and that excluding pre-Oct. 1 sentences violates equal protection; she also challenged a duplicate restitution fine imposition.
- The People argued Realignment is prospective and not retroactive to Mora’s pre-Oct. 1, 2011 sentence; the court ultimately held Realignment did not apply to Mora’s sentence, and on remand ordered reduction of the duplicate restitution fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Realignment apply to Mora's sentence executed after Oct. 1, 2011? | Mora: Realignment should apply to all eligible defendants whose sentences were executed after Oct. 1, 2011. | People: Realignment applies prospectively only to those sentenced on or after Oct. 1, 2011; Mora’s sentence was imposed before that date. | Realignment is prospective; Mora’s earlier-imposed sentence executed after Oct. 1, 2011 does not retroactively apply. |
| Does equal protection bar excluding pre-Oct. 1, 2011 sentences from Realignment when execution occurs after Oct. 1, 2011? | Excluding Mora creates two similarly situated groups and violates equal protection. | Classification by sentencing date is rational to preserve sentence integrity and avoid retroactive disruption. | No equal protection violation; prospective Realignment rationally related to legitimate state interest. |
| Was Mora improperly subjected to a duplicate restitution fine under §1202.4 and §1202.45? | Mora contends duplicate restitution fine was improper. | People concede the duplicate restitution fine was improper and should be corrected. | Yes; the duplicate §1202.4 fine was erroneous and must be struck on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Clytus, 209 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (Realignment may apply to sentences executed after Oct. 1, 2011 when imposed before that date)
- People v. Gipson, 213 Cal.App.4th 1523 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (Realignment applies to defendants sentenced before Oct. 1, 2011 only if execution aligns with statutory timing)
- People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 1997) (Distinguishes between orders suspending imposition vs. execution of sentences)
- People v. Cruz, 207 Cal.App.4th 664 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (Prospective application to preserve sentence integrity)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003) (State may refrain from retroactive application of sentencing changes)
- Chagolla, 151 Cal.App.3d 1045 (Cal.App.3d 1984) (Rule 4.435(b)(2) on execution of previously pronounced judgments)