People v. Preston
239 Cal. App. 4th 415
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Lisa Marie Preston pleaded guilty in three separate matters (forgery 2005; forgery 2010; burglary and related misdemeanor 2011). Each matter resulted in probation with a $200 restitution-fund fine imposed as a condition of probation.
- Case 1 (2005): court sentenced to 3 years, suspended execution, granted probation and imposed $200 restitution fine but did not impose a parole-revocation fine at that time.
- Cases 2 (2010) and 3 (2011): court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Preston on probation, imposed $200 restitution fines and $200 probation-revocation fines (stayed unless probation revoked).
- In September 2013 the court revoked probation in all three cases, executed sentence (aggregate 5 years 4 months), imposed $300 parole-revocation fines in each case and an additional $300 restitution-fund fine in each case; the stays on the probation-revocation fines in cases 2 and 3 were not lifted.
- On appeal the court considered (1) whether parole-revocation fines must be imposed when a sentence that includes parole is imposed but execution is suspended; (2) whether a parole-revocation fine may be imposed later when sentence is imposed after an earlier restitution-fine assessment; (3) whether both probation- and parole-revocation fines can be imposed; and (4) whether stays on probation-revocation fines must be lifted when probation is revoked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to impose a §1202.45 parole‑revocation fine when sentence was imposed but execution suspended (case 1) was unauthorized | The People defended the fines imposed on revocation but did not dispute that a parole fine should match the restitution fine | Preston argued §1202.45 did not apply when execution was suspended and thus no parole fine was required at original sentencing | Court: When sentence that includes parole is imposed (even if execution is suspended) the court must impose the parole‑revocation fine at sentencing; failure was an unauthorized sentence — reduce parole fines to match restitution ($300 → $200). |
| Whether court may impose a §1202.45 parole‑revocation fine years after a §1202.4 restitution fine when imposition of sentence was initially suspended (cases 2 & 3) | People argued the court may impose the parole fine at later sentencing (Andrade reasoning) | Preston argued §1202.45 requires assessment "at the time of imposing the restitution fine," so it could not be imposed later | Court: Parole‑revocation fine must be imposed when sentence including parole is later imposed; Andrade’s approach is correct and consistent with statute purpose — parole fines valid but must equal restitution fines. |
| Whether both §1202.44 probation‑revocation and §1202.45 parole‑revocation fines can be imposed in the same matter | People supported imposition of both where appropriate | Preston relied on Hunt to argue both cannot be imposed together (risk of disparate treatment) | Court: Both fines may be imposed (and stayed where appropriate); defendant only pays revocation fines when probation/parole revoked. |
| Whether stays on probation‑revocation fines must be lifted when probation is revoked (cases 2 & 3) | People conceded stays should be lifted (stay becomes void on revocation) | Preston argued stays should have been lifted on revocation | Court: Stay on probation‑revocation fines must be lifted upon revocation; remedy ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chambers, 65 Cal.App.4th 819 (App. 1998) (trial court may not impose a second restitution fine after one was imposed as condition of probation)
- People v. Hannah, 73 Cal.App.4th 270 (App. 1999) (held §1202.45 inapplicable when sentence did not presently allow parole)
- People v. Tye, 83 Cal.App.4th 1398 (App. 2000) (when prison sentence including parole is imposed and execution suspended, §1202.45 applies)
- People v. Calabrese, 101 Cal.App.4th 79 (App. 2002) (agrees that suspended execution of an imposed prison term that includes parole falls within §1202.45)
- People v. Andrade, 100 Cal.App.4th 351 (App. 2002) (allows imposition of parole‑revocation fine at later sentencing when restitution fine was previously imposed)
- People v. Smith, 24 Cal.4th 849 (Cal. 2001) (parole revocation fine must be imposed when sentence includes a period of parole)
- People v. Nuckles, 56 Cal.4th 601 (Cal. 2013) (prison sentences generally include parole)
- People v. Guiffre, 167 Cal.App.4th 430 (App. 2008) (stay on probation‑revocation fine must be lifted when probation is revoked)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) (unauthorized sentencing errors may be corrected at any time)