68 Cal.App.5th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 1998 Tak Sun Tan was convicted of first degree murder and robbery; the murder sentence was an indeterminate 56 years to life and the robbery sentence was stayed.
- Senate Bill 1437 (2019) created Penal Code §1170.95 allowing resentencing for persons who could not be convicted of murder under the amended felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences rules.
- Tan petitioned under §1170.95; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court granted the petition, vacated the murder conviction, and resentenced him on the robbery count to a determinate 16‑year term, then ordered release on time served.
- The trial court also placed Tan on parole supervision for three years pursuant to §1170.95(g).
- On appeal Tan argued, and the People conceded, that Penal Code §3000.01 (effective July 1, 2020) limits parole for determinate terms to two years, so the three‑year parole term was unauthorized; the Court of Appeal agreed and modified the parole term to two years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3000.01 limits parole for determinate sentences to two years for releases after July 1, 2020 | People conceded §3000.01 applies and caps parole at two years for determinate terms | Tan argued the three‑year term imposed under §1170.95(g) is unauthorized because §3000.01 caps at two years | Court held §3000.01 governs and reduced parole to two years |
| Whether §3000.01 conflicts with §1170.95(g)’s authorization of up to three years of parole | People argued no conflict; §3000.01, enacted later, narrows §1170.95’s authorization | Tan contended the resentencing statute permits up to three years of parole | Court harmonized the statutes: §1170.95 sets a 3‑year ceiling but §3000.01, applicable to releases after July 1, 2020 and containing a "notwithstanding" clause, limits determinate‑term parole to two years |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (unauthorized sentences may be corrected on appeal)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v. Pieters, 52 Cal.3d 894 (courts should harmonize potentially conflicting statutes)
- In re Greg F., 55 Cal.4th 393 (noting significance of "notwithstanding any other law" language)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (presumption the Legislature is aware of existing statutes)
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (application of custody credits against parole terms)