95 Cal.App.5th 48
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In May 2013 Rojas started a fistfight with his cousin Antonio; during the melee a companion, Emir Acosta, fatally shot Antonio.
- Rojas was convicted of voluntary manslaughter with true gang and firearm enhancements and sentenced to 22 years; the trial court ordered $280 restitution fine, $280 stayed parole-revocation fine, $40 court operations assessment, $30 conviction assessment, and $18,671.47 in direct victim restitution; abstract showed 1,888 days custody credit.
- In 2022 Rojas petitioned under Penal Code §1172.6; the parties stipulated he be resentenced to assault (§245(a)(4)); the court vacated the manslaughter conviction, imposed the 3-year midterm, reimposed the same fines/fees/restitution, awarded the same custody credits on the abstract, and ordered two years’ parole.
- Rojas appealed arguing (1) the trial court failed to award full custody credits, (2) excess credits should offset fines/assessments and parole, and (3) the direct victim restitution for burial expenses was improper.
- The Court of Appeal: remanded for recalculation of custody credits; directed excess credits satisfy the $280 restitution fine and $280 parole-revocation fine under the version of former §2900.5 in effect at the time of the offense; rejected applying credits to nonpunitive assessments or to eliminate parole; affirmed the restitution order for burial expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Rojas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of custody-credit calculation on resentencing | People conceded appellant made prima facie showing and agreed resentencing warranted; provided an alternative credit calculation but accepted remand for court to determine exact credits. | Rojas argued he was entitled to all time served (contested calculations), and resentencing should reflect full presentence and post-sentencing custody credits. | Remand for the trial court to calculate correct custody credits and prepare a new abstract; trial court erred by leaving credits unresolved. |
| Application of excess custody credits to fines/assessments | Conceded excess credits should offset the $280 parole-revocation fine; argued restitution fine treatment depends on applicable §2900.5 version. | Argued excess credits should offset $280 restitution fine, $280 parole-revocation fine, and also the $40 and $30 nonpunitive assessments. | Under former §2900.5 (in effect at the time of the offense) excess credits must be applied to punitive fines including restitution and parole-revocation fines; restitution fine and parole-revocation fine deemed satisfied. Nonpunitive assessments ($40, $30) are not offset. |
| Whether excess credits extinguish or reduce parole term | People maintained the court may impose parole up to two years upon resentencing; credits do not automatically eliminate parole. | Rojas argued excess credits should preclude imposition of additional parole under §1172.6(d)(1) and (h). | Argument forfeited by failure to object below; on the merits, the court follows Morales/Wilson/Lamoureux line — §1172.6 permits up to two years’ parole notwithstanding excess custody credits; parole may be imposed in the court’s discretion. |
| Validity of direct victim restitution for burial expenses after resentencing to assault | People argued restitution for burial expenses is authorized because Rojas’s assault was a substantial factor in the death and resulting economic loss. | Rojas argued restitution cannot be imposed for losses tied to the victim’s death because he no longer stands convicted of the homicide that caused those losses. | Restitution order upheld: causation principles show Rojas’s assault set in motion reasonably foreseeable events leading to death; restitution for burial expenses reasonably flows from his criminal conduct and was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (Supreme Court) (interpreting excess-credit application to parole under a resentencing statute)
- People v. Lamoureux, 57 Cal.App.5th 136 (Court of Appeal) (applies Morales to §1172.6 resentencings; credits do not automatically eliminate parole)
- People v. Wilson, 53 Cal.App.5th 42 (Court of Appeal) (concludes court may impose parole despite excess custody credits on §1172.6 resentencing)
- People v. Buckhalter, 26 Cal.4th 20 (Supreme Court) (trial court must determine actual custody days when sentence modified)
- People v. Pinon, 6 Cal.App.5th 956 (Court of Appeal) (excess custody credits available only against punitive assessments)
- People v. Trout-Lacy, 43 Cal.App.5th 369 (Court of Appeal) (use of tort causation principles to sustain restitution for funeral expenses tied to defendant’s conduct)
- People v. Martinez, 2 Cal.5th 1093 (Supreme Court) (limits restitution to losses caused by the defendant’s criminal conduct; discussed and distinguished)
- People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749 (Supreme Court) (holding §1465.8 assessment is nonpunitive and not subject to excess-credit offset)