People v. Morris
242 Cal. App. 4th 94
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2013 Morris pleaded no contest to felony petty theft with three-or-more prior theft convictions (Pen. Code § 666) and admitted a strike and two prison priors; he was sentenced to four years and ordered to pay a $280 restitution fine plus $719 in victim restitution.
- After Proposition 47 (effective Nov. 5, 2014), Morris petitioned under section 1170.18 to recall his sentence; the trial court reduced his felony to a misdemeanor on Nov. 10, 2014, imposed a six-month jail term, a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and $719 victim restitution, and waived other fees.
- Morris had 477 days of custody credits; after the six-month jail term (180 days) he had 297 excess days.
- Former § 2900.5(a) (in effect at the time of Morris’s offense) allowed excess custody credits to be applied to restitution fines at a rate of at least $30 per day; the statute was amended in July 2013 to exclude restitution fines.
- Morris argued (on appeal) that under the pre-amendment § 2900.5(a) and ex post facto principles he is entitled to apply his excess custody credits to satisfy the $200 restitution fine; the People initially conceded but later withdrew based on a conflicting appellate decision.
- The Court of Appeal held Morris’s excess custody credits (297 days × $30/day) satisfy the $200 restitution fine and ordered the abstract of judgment modified to show the fine satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excess custody credits can be applied to satisfy a § 1202.4 restitution fine after resentencing under Prop. 47 | People argued (later) that under the current § 2900.5(a) (post‑2013 amendment) credits cannot satisfy restitution fines | Morris argued former § 2900.5(a) applied (his offense predated the amendment) and ex post facto principles entitle him to apply credits to the $200 restitution fine | Court held former § 2900.5(a) governs; Morris’s excess custody credits satisfy the $200 restitution fine and judgment modified accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Souza, 54 Cal.4th 90 (2012) (restitution fines are punitive; ex post facto protections apply to restitution fines)
- People v. Villalobos, 54 Cal.4th 177 (2012) (overview of restitution fine regime and deposits into Restitution Fund)
- People v. Robinson, 209 Cal.App.4th 401 (2012) (construing former § 2900.5(a) as applicable to restitution fines)
- People v. Morales, 238 Cal.App.4th 42 (2015) (held excess custody credits could be applied to restitution fines under pre‑amendment law)
- People v. McCoy, 239 Cal.App.4th 431 (2015) (concluded post‑amendment § 2900.5(a) excludes application of credits to restitution fines)