People v. Steward
228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 877
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Steward was serving an aggregate prison term for multiple felonies; after a Proposition 47 resentencing his drug possession conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor but he remained incarcerated on a subordinate felony (failure to appear) and enhancements.
- The trial court granted Proposition 47 resentencing, credited Steward with more custody credits than the newly imposed prison term, and released him shortly thereafter.
- Upon release Steward was placed on postrelease community supervision (PRCS); he later violated PRCS, admitted the violation, was sentenced to time served, and PRCS was reinstated.
- During revocation proceedings Steward asserted his excess custody credits (from the Prop. 47 resentencing) should reduce his three-year PRCS term; the trial court reduced PRCS by the excess credits and adjusted the calculation method.
- The People contested the court’s authority to apply excess custody credits to reduce PRCS; the Court of Appeal requested supplemental briefing and resolved whether generally applicable sentencing law governs when Proposition 47 is silent on PRCS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may apply excess pre‑imprisonment custody credits (resulting from a Proposition 47 resentencing) to reduce a term of PRCS | The People argued the trial court erred because Proposition 47 and statutes like § 2900.5 do not authorize reducing PRCS with excess credits | Steward argued generally applicable credit statutes (e.g., § 2900.5 and § 1170(a)(3)) require presentence credits be applied against postrelease supervision, so excess credits should reduce PRCS | The court held generally applicable sentencing rules govern here and construed § 1170(a)(3) to require that excess custody credits be applied to reduce PRCS; it affirmed the trial court’s reduction of Steward’s PRCS term |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (Supreme Court of California) (interpreting Proposition 47 parole language and holding excess credits do not reduce the one‑year parole term provided by Prop. 47)
- People v. Pinon, 6 Cal.App.5th 956 (Court of Appeal) (applied § 2900.5 to fines after Proposition 47; distinguished Morales where Prop. 47 is silent)
- People v. Espinoza, 226 Cal.App.4th 635 (Court of Appeal) (held excess custody credits did not reduce PRCS under prior statutory framework)
- People v. Roach, 247 Cal.App.4th 178 (Court of Appeal) (explained resentencing under § 1170.18 must follow generally applicable sentencing procedures)
- In re Sosa, 102 Cal.App.3d 1002 (Court of Appeal) (construed earlier DSL language to apply presentence credit against both imprisonment and parole)