64 Cal.App.5th 474
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 1988 Watson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years-to-life for the 1987 killing of Alan Castle; he later filed a resentencing petition under Penal Code §1170.95 after SB 1437 (2018) reformed felony-murder liability.
- Watson’s §1170.95 petition alleged he was an aider/abettor to a robbery and did not intend or act with reckless indifference to kill; the trial court found he made a prima facie showing and held a hearing where Watson testified.
- The trial court vacated the murder conviction, redesignated the vacated conviction as first-degree burglary and first-degree robbery, sentenced Watson to the upper term of 6 years on burglary, stayed the 6-year robbery term (§654), awarded 11,714 days’ custody credit, and placed him on parole supervision.
- The court imposed a $1,800 restitution fine (§1202.4) and a $1,800 parole-revocation restitution fine (§1202.45); Watson appealed the redesignation and parole and challenged the fines and credit application.
- The Court of Appeal: (1) affirmed that the court may redesignate a vacated murder conviction as more than one underlying felony under §1170.95(e); (2) held the court permissibly placed Watson on parole under §1170.95(g) but remanded to specify the parole duration; (3) deemed the $1,800 restitution fine satisfied by excess custody credits; and (4) struck the §1202.45 parole-revocation fine as an ex post facto unauthorized fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Watson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1170.95(e) permits redesignation of a vacated murder conviction as more than one underlying felony | Trial court may redesignate all underlying felonies shown by the record to calibrate punishment to culpability | §1170.95(e) language (“the underlying felony”) is singular and limits redesignation to one felony; imposing multiple felony convictions is unauthorized | Court held §1170.95(e) does not preclude designating multiple underlying felonies; redesignation as burglary and robbery was proper |
| Whether excess custody credits must automatically eliminate or reduce a parole period imposed under §1170.95(g) | Court has discretion to impose parole up to 3 years; §1170.95(g) does not require applying excess credits to reduce parole | Excess custody credits should be applied to eliminate parole under §2900.5/§1170 | Court followed Wilson/Morales: §1170.95(g) does not mandate using excess credits to offset parole; trial court may exercise discretion; remand to specify parole duration |
| Whether trial court’s failure to specify parole duration requires remand | People agreed remand appropriate to set parole term | Watson argued court erred by not selecting a parole period | Court remanded for limited resentencing so trial court can exercise informed discretion to set parole length (up to 3 years) |
| Validity and application of restitution fines ($1,800 §1202.4 and $1,800 §1202.45) | Restitution fine was imposed but credits should be applied; §1202.45 fine valid generally | §1202.45 fine unconstitutional/ex post facto because offense predated statute; excess custody credits should satisfy restitution fine | Excess custody credits (11,714 days) satisfy $1,800 restitution fine under former §2900.5; §1202.45 parole-revocation restitution fine stricken as ex post facto/unauthorized |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Howard, 50 Cal.App.5th 727 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (upholding trial-court redesignation to reflect the felony shown by the record and emphasizing statutory purpose of calibrating punishment)
- People v. Wilson, 53 Cal.App.5th 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (held §1170.95(g) does not require applying excess custody credits to reduce parole; court has discretion to impose parole)
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (Cal. 2016) (interpreting analogous Proposition 47 resentencing statute and holding credit-for-time-served provision does not automatically reduce imposed parole)
- People v. Morris, 242 Cal.App.4th 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (excess custody credits can be applied to satisfy restitution fines under the version of §2900.5 in effect at the time of the offense)
- People v. Lewis, 25 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2001) (recognizing a homicide can be predicated on multiple underlying felonies such as robbery and burglary)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (defining underlying felony in the felony-murder context)
- People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (Cal. 1983) (criticized broad felony-murder application in legislative history cited by SB 1437)
- People v. Cavitt, 33 Cal.4th 187 (Cal. 2004) (discussing felony-murder doctrine and legislative policy on culpability)