People v. Guillen

California Court of Appeal Jan 15, 2013 No. No. B239163Published

Before: Gilbert

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant convicted under Vehicle Code section 23550.5 is ineligible for sentencing to county jail under the Criminal Justice Realignment Act because the statute does not expressly authorize punishment pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h).

Issues

Whether a defendant convicted under Vehicle Code section 23550.5 is eligible for local custody sentencing under the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court did not err by concluding that Guillen was statutorily ineligible to serve his sentence in county jail pursuant to the realignment legislation.”

“by failing to include language in section 23550.5 authorizing punishment pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), the Legislature intentionally excluded defendants convicted of that offense from eligibility for a county jail sentence.”

[994]Opinion

GILBERT, P. J. The Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 provides that certain felony offenders serve their sentences in “local custody” instead of state prison. (The Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 12, § 1).) Here we look to various statutes to determine whether appellant Atanacio Corona Guillen, also known as Francisco Meza Baltasar, will serve his sentence in state prison or local custody.

Guillen appeals a judgment entered following his plea to driving with a 0.08 percent or higher blood-alcohol content with the admission of a prior felony (Veh. Code, § 23152, for which he received a felony sentence) and stating false information to a police officer (id., §§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550.5; Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)).1 The trial court sentenced him to state prison. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the early morning of August 13, 2011, a Santa Maria police officer observed Guillen driving his vehicle erratically within the traffic lane. The officer stopped Guillen and administered field sobriety tests. Guillen failed the sobriety tests, and toxicology tests later revealed his blood-alcohol content to be 0.21 percent.

On December 9, 2011, Guillen was advised of and waived his constitutional rights, and pleaded nolo contendere to driving with a 0.08 percent or higher blood-alcohol content (count 2), and giving false information to a police officer (count 3). (§ 23152, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a).) Guillen also admitted that he suffered a prior conviction for driving with a 0.08 percent or higher blood-alcohol content, and that he served a prior prison term. (§ 23550.5; Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)

The trial court made requisite factual findings, accepted Guillen’s plea, and convicted him of the two counts. It sentenced him to a two-year state prison term for count 2, and added a consecutive one-year term for the prior prison term that he served. It imposed a 180-day sentence for count 3 to be served concurrently, ordered Guillen to pay a $600 restitution fine and a $600 parole revocation restitution fine (stayed), awarded him 328 days of presentence custody credit, and dismissed the remaining charged counts. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.)

People v. Guillen

AI Brief

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief