Skip to content
Name: People v. Butler
Case #: B259153
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/15/2016

Penal Code section 1202.45 revocation fine may not be imposed on defendant who received straight felony county jail sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h). Butler was convicted of misdemeanor false imprisonment and felony resisting an officer. He was sentenced to two years in county jail. No part of the sentence was suspended as permitted by Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B). The trial court imposed a Penal Code section 1202.4 restitution fine and imposed and stayed a revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.45. Butler challenged the revocation fine on appeal. Held: Fine reversed. Section 1202.45, subdivision (a) requires imposition and stay of a parole revocation fine on defendants sentenced to prison. Following the passage of the Realignment Act of 2011, section 1202.45 was amended to require the imposition and stay of a revocation fine where the defendant is subject to postrelease community supervision under Penal Code section 3451 or mandatory supervision under section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B). (See Pen. Code, § 1202.45, subd. (b).) Postrelease community supervision applies only to inmates released from prison and Butler was sentenced to county jail. Mandatory supervision only applies when a trial court imposing sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h)(5), “splits” a sentence, i.e., orders a period of custody and suspends execution of the concluding portion of a term, placing the defendant on mandatory supervision. Here, Butler’s term was not split so he was not subject to mandatory supervision. As a result, section 1202.45 did not authorize a revocation fine in Butler’s case.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: