People v. Morales
63 Cal. 4th 399
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) reclassified certain drug- and theft-related felonies/wobblers as misdemeanors and created §1170.18 allowing resentencing of persons serving sentences for those offenses.
- §1170.18(d) directs that a person resentenced “shall be given credit for time served and shall be subject to parole for one year following completion of his or her sentence, unless the court…releases the person from parole.”
- Morales pleaded guilty to felony possession of heroin, was sentenced to 16 months with 220 days’ credit, released to postrelease community supervision, then successfully petitioned under Prop. 47 to be resentenced to a misdemeanor with time served and one year of parole imposed.
- The Court of Appeal held Morales’ excess custody credits could be applied to reduce or eliminate the one-year parole period (and could reduce fines); Morales appealed to the California Supreme Court on the parole-credit question.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether excess time-served credits can be applied to shorten or eliminate the §1170.18(d) one-year parole term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Morales) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excess custody credits may reduce or eliminate the one-year parole term under §1170.18(d) | Voters intended the one-year parole and did not make it reducible by excess credits; §1170.18(d) expresses parole as a separate requirement not subject to §2900.5 treatment | Excess presentence/overcustody credits should operate as under §2900.5 to reduce any parole period incurred after resentencing | No — excess credit for time served does not reduce the one-year parole period; court may release from parole in its discretion but credits do not shorten parole |
| Whether the trial court should have merely redesignated the felony as a misdemeanor rather than resentencing (related procedural point) | Court properly resentenced under §1170.18(b) when petitioner met criteria | Morales argued resentencing was unnecessary because he was already released; refusal was error | Court of Appeal was correct to allow resentencing; Supreme Court did not disturb that determination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sosa, 102 Cal.App.3d 1002 (Cal. Ct. App.) (excess presentence credits can reduce parole in ordinary sentencing)
- In re Rojas, 23 Cal.3d 152 (Cal.) (purpose of §2900.5 to equalize indigent defendants unable to post bail)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App.) (overview of Prop. 47 and its effect)
- People v. Mora, 214 Cal.App.4th 1477 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussion of parole as a condition when resentencing provides benefit)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal.) (ameliorative sentencing changes may be prospectively applied)
- Hodges v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 109 (Cal.) (limits on judicial construction of voter-enacted statutes)