People v. Escbedo CA5

Filed 6/2/15 P. v. Escbedo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068378 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF40610) v.

DANIEL ESCOBEDO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Eric L. DuTemple, Judge. (Retired judge of the Tuolumne County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Monique Q. Boldin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna, Leanne Le Mon, and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Detjen, J.

Defendant Daniel Escobedo was convicted by jury trial of battery by a prisoner on a nonconfined person (Pen. Code, § 4501.5)1 for an offense he committed on December 23, 2012. The trial court sentenced him to six years in prison and imposed, among other things, a $2,240 parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45. On appeal, defendant contends, and the People concede, there was no statutory basis for the court to impose a parole revocation restitution fine because defendant’s sentence, under California’s Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act; Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1), subjects him to community supervision rather than parole upon his release from custody. The parties agree that this issue has been resolved by the recent case of People v. Isaac (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 143 (Isaac). In that case, the court explained:

“Before the Realignment Act, a prison sentence ended with a period of parole administered by the state. (Stats. 2010, ch. 219, § 19.) Now, a prison sentence for certain felons ends with county-administered community supervision in lieu of parole. (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, §§ 468, 479; §§ 3000, subd. (a)(1), 3000.08, 3451; see People v. Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 664, 671-672 (Cruz).) Serious felons remain subject to parole, but felons whose crimes fall short of certain severity criteria are ‘subject to community supervision’ for up to three years if ‘released from prison on and after October 1, 2011.’ (§ 3451, subd. (a).) Community supervision is to be ‘provided by a county agency designated by each county’s board of supervisors’ and should be ‘consistent with evidence-based practices, including, but not limited to, supervision policies, procedures, programs, and practices demonstrated by scientific research to reduce recidivism among individuals under postrelease supervision.’ (Ibid.)