Skip to content
Name: People v. Isaac
Case #: A135701
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/27/2014
Summary

Parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45) does not apply to postrelease community supervision because it is not “parole.” Isaac was convicted of unlawful gun possession (former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)), with a strike prior. On June 11, 2012, the court sentenced him to prison, and imposed fines pursuant to section 1202.4 and 1202.45. Isaac challenged the section 1202.45 fine because, after release from prison, he was subject to postrelease community supervision under the Realignment Act of 2011, not state parole. Held: Fine stricken. After Realignment, prison sentences for certain felonies end not with parole, but with postrelease community supervision, which is administered by the county. Based on the date of Isaac’s offense and sentencing, he was subject to community supervision. Section 1202.45, which was not amended at the same time Realignment was enacted, provided for imposition of a parole revocation fine whenever the sentence included a period of parole. On September 29, 2012, Senate Bill 1210 amended section 1202.45 by adding subdivision (b), providing for a postrelease community supervision fine. However, this amendment may not be applied retroactively to Isaac. The court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the fine was authorized under Penal Code section 1202.44, which provides for imposition of a probation revocation restitution fine when a conditional sentence or a period of probation is imposed. Postrelease community supervision is not substantially equivalent to a “conditional sentence,” which requires the suspension of imposition or execution of a sentence and is only appropriate for infractions and misdemeanors. Here, Isaac was convicted of a felony and his sentence was imposed, not suspended.