Skip to content
Name: People v. Reece
Case #: H038356
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/04/2013
Subsequent History: Review granted 1/15/2014: S214573
Summary

The Realignment Act applies to defendant whose sentence was imposed before, but executed after, the operative date of the Act. Reece’s prison sentence for petty thefts with priors was imposed, but suspended in execution, prior to October 1, 2011 (the effective date of Realignment), and he was placed on probation. In 2012, he admitted a violation and his five year, eight month sentence was executed. The trial court ordered him to serve the term in county jail. The prosecution appealed, claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter the location of incarceration. Held: Affirmed. When the legislative history and declaration of intent (Pen. Code, § 17.5) of the Act are viewed as a whole, it is apparent the Legislature intended to apply the Act to qualified defendants who were sentenced or had their sentences executed after October 1, 2011. People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, only proscribes reducing a previously-imposed sentence; it is silent with respect to the location of incarceration. Applying Realignment to Reece would not reduce his sentence by potentially allowing a split term or not requiring parole upon release. Reece did not receive a split term and whether parole is ordered does not affect the length of the term. Although section 1170, subdivision (h)(6) operates as a savings clause foreclosing retroactive application of the Act, Reece’s sentences were not executed until after the effective date of the Act, which brings them within the scope of the new law.