People v. ScottPeople v. Scott
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.—In 2011, the Legislature enacted and amended the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 addressing public safety (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1; Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011–2012, ch. 12, § 1 (the Realignment Act or the Act)). As relevant here, the Realignment Act significantly changes the punishment for some felony convictions. Under the terms of the Act, low-level felony offenders who have neither current nor prior convictions for serious or violent offenses, who are not required to register as sex offenders, and who are nоt subject to an enhancement for multiple felonies involving fraud or embezzlement, no longer serve their sentences in state prison. Instead, such offenders serve their sentences either entirely in county jail or partly in county jail and partly under the mandatory supervision
A conflict in Court of Appeal decisions has developed regarding the applicability of the Realignment Act to the category of defendаnts who, prior to October 1, 2011, have had a state prison sentence imposed with execution of the sentence suspended pending successful completion of a term of probation, and who, after October 1, 2011, have their probation revoked and are ordered to serve their previously imposed term of incarceration. (Compare People v. Clytus (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006–1009 [147 Cal.Rptr.3d 448] (Clytus) [the Realignment Act applies, defendant to serve term in county jail] with People v. Gipson (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1523, 1528–1530 [153 Cal.Rptr.3d 428] (Gipson) [the Realignment Act does not apply, defendant to serve term in state prison].)2 In this case, the Court of Appeal agreed with the decision in Clytus and held that the trial court had properly directed that defendant‘s sentence should be served in county jail rather than in state prison. We granted review to resolve the conflict in the Court of Appeal decisions on this issue.
We conсlude that the Realignment Act is not applicable to defendants whose state prison sentences were imposed and suspended prior to October 1, 2011. Upon revocation and termination of such a defendant‘s probation, the trial court ordering execution of the previously imposed sentence must order the sentence to be served in state prison according to the terms of the original sentence, even if the defendant otherwise qualifies for incarceration in county jail under the terms of the Realignment Act. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeal‘s contrary determination.
In May 2009, defendant was charged with transportation or sale of a controlled substance (
Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to count 2 (possession of cocaine base for sale) and admitted the prior conviction on the condition that he be placed on felony probation with a suspended seven-year prison sentence.
In June 2009, the trial court imposed on defendant a seven-year state prison sentence, composed of a four-year middle term for defendant‘s conviction of possessing cocaine base and a three-year term for the prior conviction enhancement. However, the trial court suspended execution of the seven-yеar sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for a period of three years. The remaining charges were dismissed pursuant to
Defendant‘s probation was revoked and reinstated on two subsequent occasions. On October 4, 2011, a third petition to revoke probation was filed pursuant to
On December 13, 2011, the trial court revoked defendant‘s probation and lifted the suspension of the previously imposed sentence. The court continued the hearing, however, to allow briefing addressing whether defendant should serve the previously imposed but suspended seven-year term of incarcerаtion in state prison or locally in county jail. After briefing and argument, the court ruled that defendant qualified for a local commitment because the court‘s decision whether to reinstate defendant‘s probation was “essentially a sentencing proceeding” occurring after October 1, 2011, making the provisions of the Realignment Act applicable under section 1170(h)(6). On December 22, 2011, the trial court ordered defendant to sеrve his seven-year term in county jail pursuant to section 1170(h).
II. Discussion
” ‘As in any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task here is to determine the Legislature‘s intent so as to effectuate the law‘s purpose. [Citation.] We begin by examining the statute‘s words, giving them a plain and сommonsense meaning. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ’ “When the language of a statute is clear, we need go no further.” [Citation.] But where a statute‘s terms are unclear or ambiguous, we may “look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a рart.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Harrison (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1211, 1221–1222 [164 Cal.Rptr.3d 167, 312 P.3d 88].)
Section 1170(h)(6) provides that “[t]he sentencing changes made by the [Realignment Act] . . . shall be applied prospectively to any person sentenced on or after October 1, 2011.” (Italics added.) The language we have highlighted appears clear on its face for any felony offender whose punishment is imposed and not suspended, but ordered executed at the same time. If such a sentence is pronounced befоre October 1, 2011, the Act does not apply. However, the meaning of the term “sentenced” in section 1170(h)(6) is potentially ambiguous regarding felony offenders, like defendant in this case, whose state prison terms of incarceration were imposed but execution was suspended pending successful completion of a term of probation prior to October 1, 2011, and who, subsequent to October 1, 2011, have their probation revoked and are ordered to serve the previously imposed term of incarceration. Are such defendants “sentenced,” within the meaning of section 1170(h)(6), when the sentence is originally imposed and suspended, or are they “sentenced,” for purposes of this statute, when the court subsequently orders execution of the sentence? There is no definition of “sentenced” in the Realignment Act itself and nothing in the legislative history of the Aсt indicates how the Legislature intended the Act to be applied in this situation. As we have noted, the Courts of Appeal are divided on the issue.3
The Court of Appeal in Gipson, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th 1523, disagreed with Clytus, holding instead that “a defendant is sentenced on the date that sentence is first announced and imposed even if execution of the sentence does not happen until a later date.” (Gipson, supra, at p. 1526.) The Gipson court concluded that the word “sentenced” in section 1170(h)(6) “means the time when the trial court first announced and imposed sentence as opposed to the time when the sentence was executed.” (Gipson, supra, at p. 1529.) The court determined that under Howard, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pages 1087–1088, and People v. Chagolla (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1049 [199 Cal.Rptr. 181], a defеndant who has a sentence imposed and suspended has had a final judgment entered and upon revocation of the suspension of execution of the judgment, the court lacks jurisdiction “to do anything other than order the execution of the previously imposed state prison sentence.” (Gipson, supra, at pp. 1529–1530.)
The Court of Appeal in Kelly, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 297, agreed with Gipson. It observed that “[t]he principles discussed in Howard are derived from section 1203.2, subdivision (c).” (Kelly, supra, at p. 302, citing Howard, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 1087–1088.) Subdivision (c) of section 1203.2
We agree with Gipson and Kelly that the statutory provisions and case law existing at the time of the Legislature‘s enactment of section 1170(h)(6) in 2011 established that a defendant is “sentenced” when a judgment imposing punishment is pronounced even if execution of the sentence is then suspended. A defendant is not sentenced again when the trial court lifts the suspension of the sentence and orders the previously imposed sentence to be executed.
In our 1997 decision in Howard, supra, 16 Cal.4th 1081, we discussed the distinction between suspending imposition of a sentence and suspending execution of a sentence. We explained that “[w]hen the trial court suspends imposition of sentence, no judgment is then pending against the probationer, who is subject only to the terms and conditions of the probation. [Citations.] The probation order is considered to be a final judgment only for the ‘limited purpose of taking an appeal therefrom.’ [Citation.] On the
We found these principles reflected in
Admittedly we did not consider in Howard the court‘s authority under the Realignment Act to change the location of where a defendant is to serve a previously imposed term of incarceration—at the time of Howard all felony sentences wеre to be served in state prison. Nevertheless, Howard establishes that when a court elects to impose a sentence, a judgment has been entered and the terms of the sentence have been set even though its execution is suspended pending a term of probation. Contrary to the claim of defendant, a sentence includes more than the length of the term of confinement. (See, e.g., People v. Garcia (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th 913, 916–917 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 12] [sex offender registration requirement was part of sentence imposed and could not be removed when court ordered sentence executed].)
It is a settled principle of statutory construction that the Legislature ” ‘is deemed to be aware of statutes and judicial decisions already in existence, and to have enacted or amended a statute in light thereof. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Yartz (2005) 37 Cal.4th 529, 538 [36 Cal.Rptr.3d 328, 123 P.3d 604].) Courts may assume, under such circumstances, that the Lеgislature intended to maintain a consistent body of rules and to adopt the meaning of statutory terms already construed. (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 329 [256 Cal.Rptr. 401, 768 P.2d 1078]; People v. Wood (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1270 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 308].) Applying this principle here, we conclude that the Legislature intended the term “sentenced” in section 1170(h)(6) to be consistent with Howard and
We also reject defendant‘s argument that our construction of the term “sentenced” renders section 1170(h)(6) inconsistent with the Legislature‘s use of the same term in subdivision (d) of section 1170.
Defendant claims that the purpose of the Realignment Act “is to reduce the number of defendants sent to prison and redirect resources so that nonviolent felons are to be punished in the county jail and rehabilitated locally.” He argues that a construction of section 1170(h)(6) that requires him to serve his sentence in prison is contrary to the Legislature‘s intent. We disagree.
The Legislature‘s stаted purposes concerning the Realignment Act are codified in
Finally, we reject defendant‘s argument that if we find section 1170(h)(6) to be ambiguous, we must accept his proposed interpretation of it pursuant to the ” ‘rule of “lenity,” ’ under which courts resolve doubts as to the meaning of a statute in a criminal defendant‘s favor. (People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 294, 312 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 855, 926 P.2d 1042].)” (People v. Cornett (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1261, 1271 [139 Cal.Rptr.3d 837, 274 P.3d 456].) We once again note that the rule of lenity applies ” ’ “only if two reasonable interpretations of the statute stand in relative equipoise.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Soria (2010) 48 Cal.4th 58, 65 [104 Cal.Rptr.3d 780, 224 P.3d 99]; accord, People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 627 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 74 P.3d 176].) “The rule ‘has no application where, “as here, a court ‘can fairly discern a contrary legislative intent.’ ” ’ [Citations.]” (Cornett, at p. 1271.)
We conclude that the Realignment Act is not applicable to defendants who have had a state prison sentence imposed and suspended prior to October 1, 2011. Therefore, when the trial court decided not to reinstate defendant‘s probation and to order the previously imposed seven-year sentence to be executed, defendant was not entitled, under section 1170(h)(6), to an order committing him to the county jail. We disapprove People v. Clytus, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th 1001.
The judgment of the Cоurt of Appeal is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Corrigan, J., Liu, J., and Kennard, J.,* concurred.