People v. Carranza

6 Cal.App.5th Supp. 17

212 Cal.Rptr.3d 341

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Juan CARRANZA et al., Defendants and Appellants.

BR 052691

Appellate Division, Superior Court, LOS ANGELES COUNTY.

Filed November 28, 2016

Eric Cioffi, Esq. for Defendant and Appellant in No. BR 052691.

Richard Scott Lysle, Esq. for Defendant and Appellant in No. BR 052709.

Andrea Ilana Keith, Esq. for Defendant and Appellant in No. BR 052764.

Donna L. Jones, Esq. for Defendant and Appellant in No. BR 052828.

Kenneth Neil Hamilton, Esq. for Defendant and Appellant in No. BR 052829.

Geoffrey Ojo, Esq. for Defendant and Appellant in No. BR 052846.

Roya Milder, Esq. for Defendant and Appellant in No. BR 052853.

Jackie Lacey, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, and Roberta T. Schwartz and Phyllis C. Asayama, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RICCIARDULLI, Acting P.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

The trial courts in these consolidated appeals applied defendants' custody credits to the total fines imposed, which included base fines and penalty assessments, rather than solely to the base fines. This resulted in defendants owing greater amounts, and requiring they spend more time in custody and perform more community service, to satisfy their fines than if the courts had applied their credits only toward the base fines. As discussed below, we reverse and remand for recalculation of the credits.

Assembly Bill No. 1375 (AB 1375), effective January 1, 2016, increased the value of defendants' credits to be applied towards their fines from a minimum of $30 a day to a minimum of $125 per day. But, the bill did not change the requirement in Penal Code sections 1205, subdivision (a), and 2900.5, subdivision (a),¹ that credits be applied to all fines, including penalty assessments, as provided by People v. McGarry (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 644, 647, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 475 (McGarry ). At the time of each defendant's sentencing, courts were required to use the McGarry method based on the total fines imposed, including penalty assessments, rather than applying credits solely to the base fines. Our interpretation of AB 1375 is compelled by fundamental rules of statutory construction and is not unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, the Governor on September 28, 2016, signed into law Assembly Bill No. 2839 (AB 2839), requiring that courts apply the $125 per day custody credit solely to base fines. AB 2839 was not enacted as emergency legislation—which would have become effective upon being signed—and the statute did not expressly state it should be applied to defendants who, as in the present cases, were sentenced after January 1, 2016, but prior to when AB 2839 was signed. However, the legislative history of AB 2839 makes very clear that the new law's provisions apply to defendants who were sentenced during this interim period. Moreover, because the new law lessens defendants' punishment, the rule of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948 (Estrada ), requires that we apply the law retroactively.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendants Juan Carranza, Oscar Tapia, Leand You, Daniel Lebron, Jaime Casas, William Medina, and Ruby Navarro pled no contest to misdemeanor offenses.² Carranza, Lebron, Casas, and Navarro each pled no contest to one count of driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or above (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b) ). Tapia pled no contest to driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (b) ). You pled no contest to hit-and-run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a) ). Medina pled no contest to alcohol-related reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103.5 ). Pursuant to plea bargains with the People, other charges filed against defendants in their cases were dismissed.

The courts suspended imposition of sentence, placing defendants on probation. The courts also ordered defendants to pay fines, penalty assessments, and other fees. Defense counsel argued in each of the cases that the defendant's $125 per day custody credits should be calculated based on the base fines, not on the total fines which were imposed, but the courts rejected the arguments.

Carranza, Lebron, Casas, and Navarro were ordered to pay fines of $390 plus penalty assessments and fees; Tapia was ordered to pay a $500 fine plus penalty assessments and fees; You was ordered to pay a $200 fine plus penalty assessments and fees; and Medina was ordered to pay a fine of $145 plus penalty assessments and fees. The courts awarded Carranza, Casas, Navarro, You and Medina one day they had each served in custody, awarded Lebron two days in custody, and ordered that their $125 per day credits be applied to the base fine and penalty assessments. Tapia did not have any credit for time in custody, but the court calculated how much time in jail or community service he would have to serve to satisfy his fine based on the total fine imposed instead of solely on the base fine.

Defendants filed timely appeals from the sentences imposed. (§ 1466, subd. (b)(1).)

III. DISCUSSION

The first question we must answer is whether the trial courts complied with the relevant statutes as amended by AB 1375 at the time of sentencing. As we conclude the courts did so comply, we proceed to answer a second question, whether reversal is nonetheless warranted due to AB 2839. We answer this question in the affirmative.

The issues analyzed pertain to statutory construction and interpretation. Accordingly, we exercise de novo review. (People v. Gibson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 315, 326, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 253.) We also apply the de novo standard of review to questions of constitutional law. (In re Brian J. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 97, 124, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 246.)

A. AB 1375

1. The issue.

Criminal defendants are entitled to have the time they have served in custody credited to reducing a fine ordered by the court. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a).) Also, defendants may elect to serve time in custody in order to satisfy a fine. (§ 1205, subd. (a).) Prior to 2016, the court was required to provide a defendant a minimum credit of $30 per day for each day served in custody to be applied to satisfying a fine. (See former §§ 1205, subd. (a), 2900.5, subd. (a).) AB 1375 increased the amount that a defendant must receive for each day served in custody to a minimum of $125.

Defendants argue that, in addition to increasing the amount of credit to be awarded, the Legislature required in AB 1375 that the credit must be applied to the base fine alone, not the base fine and its accompanying penalty assessments. The importance of this distinction is illustrated by converting the fine for driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or above which was imposed on defendants Carranza, Lebron, Casas, and Navarro.

In these cases, the courts imposed the minimum $390 base fine pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23538, subdivision (a)(1), and added an additional $1,396 in penalty assessments.³ For purposes of this calculation, the total fine amounted to $1,786.⁴ If only the $390 base fine were converted to custody credit at the rate of $125 per day, defendants would have had to serve three days in custody to satisfy the fine; if the $1,786 total fine was used in the calculation at the rate of $125 per day, defendants would have had to serve 14 days in custody to satisfy the fine.⁵

2. Fines and penalty assessments must be included.

Our objective is to discern the Legislature's intent in enacting AB 1375. " ‘We consider first the words of a statute, as the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]" (John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95–96, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 369 P.3d 238.) We give the words a "plain and commonsense meaning. [Citation.]" (People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 387, 19 P.3d 1129.) In doing so, " ‘ "we look to ‘the entire substance of the statute ... in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision.... [Citation.]’ [Citation.] That is, we construe the words in question ‘ "in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute...." [Citation.]’ " ' " (People v. Gonzalez (2014) 60 Cal.4th 533, 537, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 335 P.3d 1083.)

As amended by AB 1375, section 2900.5, subdivision (a), provided, "In all felony and misdemeanor convictions, either by plea or by verdict, when the defendant has been in custody, including, but not limited to, any time spent in a jail, camp, work furlough facility, halfway house, rehabilitation facility, hospital, prison, juvenile detention facility, or similar residential institution, all days of custody of the defendant, including days served as a condition of probation in compliance with a court order, credited to the period of confinement pursuant to Section 4019, and days served in home detention pursuant to Section 1203.016 or 1203.018, shall be credited upon his or her term of imprisonment, or credited to any fine, including, but not limited to, base fines , on a proportional basis, that may be imposed, at the rate of not less than one hundred twenty five dollars ($125) per day, or more, in the discretion of the court imposing the sentence. If the total number of days in custody exceeds the number of days of the term of imprisonment to be imposed, the entire term of imprisonment shall be deemed to have been served. In any case where the court has imposed both a prison or jail term of imprisonment and a fine, any days to be credited to the defendant shall first be applied to the term of imprisonment imposed, and thereafter the remaining days, if any, shall be applied to the fine, including, but not limited to, base fines, on a proportional basis." (Italics added.)

Section 1205, subdivision (a), as amended by AB 1375, provided, "A judgment that the defendant pay a fine, with or without other punishment, may also direct that he or she be imprisoned until the fine is satisfied and may further direct that the imprisonment begin at and continue after the expiration of any imprisonment imposed as a...