People v. Tubbs
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Tubbs pled guilty to possession of cocaine and possession for sale in 1997; he had two prior strike convictions and served three prison terms.
- He was originally sentenced as a third-strike offender under the Three Strikes law.
- Tubbs petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012) and a resentencing hearing was held on March 8, 2013.
- At that hearing, the People urged a relapse-prevention plan; the trial court resentenced Tubbs to 13 years and ordered PRCS upon release.
- On March 19, 2013, the trial court, without notice, modified the judgment to strike the PRCS requirement, deeming it an unauthorized sentence.
- The People appealed, contending the modification required notice/hearing and that PRCS must be included; the court ultimately reversed the March 19 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excess time credits affect PRCS duration | People: PRCS mandatory; credits cannot shorten PRCS. | Tubbs: Department controls PRCS eligibility with credits affecting duration. | Excess credits cannot reduce mandatory PRCS; trial court correct to maintain PRCS. |
| Who determines PRCS eligibility and terms | People: Department determines PRCS after release. | Tubbs: Department exclusively determines eligibility. | Trial court determines PRCS eligibility at sentencing; Department only provides notice and administers terms. |
| Need for notice and hearing before modifying resentencing order | People: modification requires notice and hearing. | Tubbs: modification of an illegal sentence requires none. | Notice and a hearing are required before modifying a resentencing order. |
| Abstract of judgment accuracy relative to oral pronouncement | People: abstract should reflect the sentence as pronounced. | Tubbs: abstract contains un-imposed fines/fees; must be corrected. | Amended abstract of judgment required to conform to oral pronouncement. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Espinoza, 226 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2014) (PRCS mandatory; excess credits do not reduce PRCS duration)
- Kaulick v. People, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2013) (three-strikes resentencing under Prop. 36; right to notice/hearing)
- People v. Torres, 213 Cal.App.4th 1151 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2013) (discusses implications of realignment and PRCS)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001) (abstract of judgment must reflect oral pronouncement)
- People v. Farell, 28 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2002) (premature abstract corrections; ministerial act alignment)
- People v. Zackery, 147 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2007) (procedural controls for judgments and ministerial corrections)