Opinion
In April 1995, Alan M. Betts was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and ordered to pay a restitution fine of $200 to the victims’ Restitution Fund under Government Code section 13967, subdivision (a). In December 1995, pursuant to Penal Code section 2085.5, subdivisions (a) and (c), the California Department of Corrections (CDC) began to collect Betts’s
Betts contends these deductions are improper because he claims Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 704.090 provides that any and аll moneys held in trust for or to the credit of an inmate, including wages and money awaiting deposit into a prison trust account, are exеmpt from the enforcement of money judgments in the amount of $1,000 prior to January 1997 and $300 thereafter.
We disagree because Betts has misinterpreted section 704.090. The statute provides an exemption for funds held in an inmate’s trust account or similar account. It does nоt apply to trust account deposits or give an inmate the unfettered right to deposit or “build up” his or her account to the exemption аmount.
Discussion
Deductions Made From December 1995 to the End of 1996
The version of section 704.090 that applied when restitution deductions were made from December 1995 to the end of 1996 provided that funds “held in trust for or to the credit of the judgment debtor, in an inmate’s trust account or similar account by the state, county, or city, or any agency thereof, are exempt without making a сlaim in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000).” (Stats. 1982, ch. 1364, § 2, p. 5158, italics added.)
Betts has seized upon the language: “funds held in trust for or to the credit оf’ to make the argument that section 704.090 prevents the CDC from making deductions in his wages and trust account deposits, because these are moneys held to his “credit.” Put another way, he contends the phrase “to the credit of’ includes moneys received by the CDC prior tо being put into his account. However, Betts's argument completely ignores express language in section 704.090 requiring the funds held in trust for or to an inmate’s credit be “in an inmate’s trust account or similar account” in order for the exemption to apply. Thus, Betts’s interpretatiоn is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and legislative intent, and we reject it. (See 16 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (Sept. 1982) p. 1091.)
Deductions Made From January 1997
In 1996, the Legislature considered eliminating the trust account exemption entirely in cases where a restitution fine or restitution order had bеen
Accordingly, section 704.090 was amended, effective January 1, 1997. (Cal. Cоnst., art. IV, § 8, subd. (c).) The original version of the statute, providing for a $1,000 exemption for funds held in trust for or to the credit of an inmate in a trust account or similar account, was designated as subdivision (a). Then subdivision (b) was added, which provides: “Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if the judgment is for a restitution fine or ordеr . . . the funds held in trust for, or to the credit of, a judgment debtor described in subdivision (a) are exempt in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300) without mating a сlaim.” (§ 704.090, subds. (a) & (b); Stats. 1996, ch. 1077, § 1.)
Section 704.090, subdivision (b) is less clear because it refers back to subdivision (a) rather than repeating the language “in an inmate’s trust аccount or similar account.” However, Betts’s contention that the phase in subdivision (b) “funds held in trust for, or to the credit of’ prevents the CDC frоm mating deductions in his wages and trust account deposits because these are moneys held to his credit, would require us to consider this language a vacuum. On the contrary, subdivision (b) must be read in conjunction with subdivision (a) and in accordance with legislative intent. Section 704.090, subdivision (a) exempts only funds held in trust for or to the credit of an inmate in an inmate’s trust account or similar account. The Legislature amended section 704.090, adding subdivision (b), in order to reduce the exemption fоr funds held in an inmate’s account from $1,000 to $300 where a restitution fine or order had been imposed. Subdivision (b) does not expand the exemption for funds held in an inmate’s account to include moneys held to the credit of an inmate, but not yet placed in his account. Such an interpretation would be completely contrary to the intent of the Legislature.
Moreover, the distinction between funds held in an inmate’s trust account or similar account, and his wages and trust deposits is not a “distinction without a difference.” For a variety of reasоns, certain types of property belonging to a judgment debtor are made immune from attachment, levy or execution up to a particular amount. (See §§ 704.010-704.210; 16 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep.,
supra,
pp. 1079-1081.) (Thus, for example, there is a $1,000 or $300 exemption for funds held in an inmate’s trust account “so
As the superior court concluded, Penal Code section 2085.5 is akin to a garnishment statute; it calls for deductions from an inmate’s wages and trust account deрosits of 20 percent or the amount of restitution outstanding, whichever amount is less (and in no case to exceed a 50 percеnt deduction), in order to enforce a restitution fine or order. (See Pen. Code, § 2085.5; §§ 706.010-706.025.) Indeed, in 1994, coverage of Penal Code section 2085.5 was expanded to cover trust account deposits in addition to wages because in many instances inmates’ funds were coming from sources other than wages, as here, and thus, inmates who had the ability to pay court-ordered restitution were instead “free tо . . . purchase televisions, stereo equipment, etc.” (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 876 (1993-1994, Reg. Sess.) as introduced Feb. 25, 1993; Pen. Code, § 2085.5, subds. (а)-(c); Stats. 1994, ch. 634, § 1.)
Conclusion
Section 704.090 and Penal Code section 2085.5 do not conflict or frustrate each other’s purposes; they are harmonious. Pursuant to Penal Code section 2085.5, subdivision (a) or (b), the CDC deducts a percentage of the inmate’s wages and trust deposits to go tоward satisfying the restitution fine or order, and the balance then goes into the inmate’s account, which under section 704.090, subdivision (b) is exempt frоm attachment, levy or execution up to $300.
Disposition
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Work, Acting P. J., and Nares, J., concurred.
Petitioner’s application for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 8, 1998.
Notes
All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.