People v. Pinon
6 Cal. App. 5th 956
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2011 Pinon pleaded guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Safety Code §11377) and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia; sentenced to 16 months prison and placed on PRCS upon release (PRCS scheduled to expire April 2015).
- After Proposition 47 (Pen. Code §1170.18) Pinon petitioned (Dec 2014) to recall/resentence the felony as a misdemeanor; the trial court granted resentencing under §1170.18(a)/(b), imposed 545 days county jail (credited 545 days) and — over Pinon’s objection — imposed one year of parole.
- On appeal this court held Pinon was "currently serving a sentence" while on PRCS and subject to resentencing under §1170.18(b), that excess custody credits could reduce parole and fines, that §654 did not require staying count 2, and that drug‑registration requirement applied; the California Supreme Court held Morales and directed reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court’s Morales decision held excess custody credits do not reduce the one‑year parole period under §1170.18(d); Morales did not address other issues in this case.
- On remand this court reaffirms that PRCS counts as "serving a sentence," that the imposed parole cannot exceed the remaining PRCS term (so parole is capped at the scheduled PRCS end), that §654 did not require a stay of the paraphernalia count, and that Pinon is exempt from registration under Health & Safety Code §11590.
- The court also holds, post‑Morales, that excess custody credits may be applied to reduce punitive fines (per Penal Code §2900.5), although they cannot shorten the §1170.18(d) parole term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant on PRCS is "currently serving a sentence" under §1170.18(a) | §1170.18 should apply only to those still serving a prison term; PRCS is not part of the sentence | "Sentence" includes prison + parole/PRCS; Pinon was still serving a sentence while on PRCS | Court: PRCS is part of a determinate felony sentence; Pinon was "currently serving a sentence" for §1170.18 purposes |
| Whether excess custody credits can reduce the one‑year parole period under §1170.18(d) | Credits should reduce parole | Credits should reduce parole (Pinon) | Court: Following People v. Morales, excess credits do NOT reduce the §1170.18(d) one‑year parole period |
| Whether excess custody credits can reduce fines (e.g., punitive assessments) | People: §2900.5 still controls fines; credits may reduce fines | Pinon: credits should reduce fines (and possibly parole) | Court: Excess credits may be applied to reduce punitive fines under §2900.5; Morales did not disturb that conclusion |
| Whether §654 required staying sentence on count 2 when resentenced under §1170.18 | Pinon: counts arise from indivisible conduct; multiple punishments barred by §654 | People: defendant stated separate objects (possession of meth and possession of paraphernalia); separate punishments allowed | Court: Substantial evidence supports separate objectives; §654 did not require a stay |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (interpreting §1170.18(d) and holding excess custody credits do not reduce the one‑year parole period)
- People v. Nuckles, 56 Cal.4th 601 (discussing parole as part of punishment and sentencing terminology)
- People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290 (explaining §654 precludes multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (describing scope and effect of Proposition 47)
- People v. Liu, 46 Cal.App.4th 1119 (standard of review and application of §654 to multiple objectives)