People v. Pinon
G051212
Cal. Ct. App.Jul 23, 2015Background
- In Aug. 2011 Pinon pleaded guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code §11377) and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia (§11364); sentenced to 16 months state prison on the felony, suspended on the misdemeanor.
- Upon release he was placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) scheduled to expire April 2015.
- After Prop. 47 (2014) Pinon petitioned under Penal Code §1170.18 to redesignate the felony as a misdemeanor.
- The trial court resentenced under §1170.18(a), imposed 545 days in county jail (including activating the previously suspended misdemeanor), credited custody, and — over Pinon’s objection — imposed one year of parole.
- Pinon appealed, arguing the court erred in imposing parole (or imposed an excessive parole period) and raising collateral sentencing issues (section 654 stay, fines, and a drug-registration requirement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing under §1170.18(a) permits imposition of one year of parole when defendant is serving PRCS | People: “term” in §1170.18(e) refers only to the custody/jail term; parole may be imposed up to one year independent of PRCS end date | Pinon: “term” includes parole; resentencing cannot impose parole longer than original sentence (including PRCS) | Court affirmed use of §1170.18(a) to recall/resentence but held “term” includes parole; parole cannot extend beyond scheduled end of original PRCS; remanded to recalculate maximum parole date |
| Whether excess custody credits must reduce maximum parole period | People: credits apply to custody but not necessarily to parole | Pinon: excess custody credits reduce parole maximum | Held: excess custody credits reduce maximum parole period; court failed to apply them and remand required |
| Whether §654 required staying the reinstated misdemeanor (count 2) | People: independent objectives supported separate punishment | Pinon: single indivisible course of conduct required stay under §654 | Held: Court found sufficient evidence of multiple objectives (defendant’s plea statement distinguishes possession of drug and pipe) and affirmed imposition without stay |
| Whether fines and parole-revocation fine must be reduced to misdemeanor levels and whether drug-registration requirement remains | People: fines were within then-allowed maximums; registration argument depends on redesignation | Pinon: fines should be reduced; registration must be stricken | Held: Defendant forfeited challenge to fines by not objecting below; requirement to register under Health & Safety Code §11590 stricken because redesignated misdemeanor is not registrable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Nuckles, 56 Cal.4th 601 (discusses parole as part of punishment and references “term of imprisonment”)
- People v. Britton, 156 Cal.App.3d 689 (describes parole as a separate term served after imprisonment)
- People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290 (section 654 prevents multiple punishments for indivisible course of conduct)
- People v. Miller, 18 Cal.3d 873 (divisibility of conduct depends on defendant’s intent/objective)
- People v. Liu, 46 Cal.App.4th 1119 (trial court’s factual finding on multiple objectives is reviewed for substantial evidence)
- People v. Oates, 32 Cal.4th 1048 (discusses limits on section 654 and related sentencing principles)