People v. Scott
58 Cal. 4th 1415
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Realignment Act of 2011 changed punishment for many felonies to county jail or local supervision.
- Defendant Scott had a seven-year prison sentence suspended for probation in 2009.
- Probation was revoked multiple times; by Dec. 2011 the court considered whether to jail locally or in state prison.
- Trial court ordered seven-year term to be served in county jail under Realignment after Oct. 1, 2011.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, adopting Clytus; Supreme Court granted review to resolve split among appellate courts.
- Court holds Realignment Act not applicable to pre-2011 suspended sentences; remands to enforce original state-prison term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1170(h)(6) applies to pre-2011 suspended sentences | Scott contends Realignment applies | Gipson/Kelly line—pre-2011 suspended sentences not covered | No; Realignment not applicable to pre-2011 suspended sentences |
| Definition of 'sentenced' in 1170(h)(6) | (Scott) 'Sentenced' includes post-2011 execution | 'Sentenced' fixed at initial pronouncement | 'Sentenced' refers to initial judgment; no re-sentencing upon execution order |
| Relationship to Howard and §1203.2(c) | Howard controls; execution not alter location | Howard applicable; may not change location post-Realignment | Howard consistent with treating initial sentence as controlling; Realignment does not override pre-2011 sentences |
| Legislative intent of Realignment Act | Realignment aims to reduce prison beyond post-2011 sentences | Realignment not intended to abrogate pre-2011 sentences | Statutory language controls; provision prospective only; not applied to pre-2011 sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Clytus, 209 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Cal.App. 4th 2012) (conflicts over applicability of Realignment to pre-2011 sentences; Clytus held applicable)
- People v. Gipson, 213 Cal.App.4th 1523 (Cal.App. 4th 2013) (held Realignment does not apply to pre-2011 suspended sentences)
- People v. Kelly, 215 Cal.App.4th 297 (Cal.App. 4th 2013) (agreed with Gipson; realignment not retroactive to pre-2011 sentences)
- People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (1997) (distinction between suspending imposition vs execution; controls sentencing notion)