People v. Coyle CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD230128
- Trial judge
- David M. Szumowski
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Judith L. Haller
Analysis
The trial court revoked probation and imposed new fines, including a $720 restitution fine and a $720 parole revocation fine, while stating previous costs would be deleted. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment as modified, striking the unauthorized new fines and reinstating the original $200 fines.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a $720 restitution fine and $240 probation revocation fine upon probation revocation“The $240 probation revocation fine and the $720 restitution fine, ordered in 2014, are unauthorized and must be stricken.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court agree with court |
Imposition of a $720 parole revocation fine“The parole revocation fine is unauthorized because in 2010, when Coyle committed his crime, section 1202.45 applied only to inmates who were subject to parole following a prison sentence.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court agree with court |
Suspension of the original $200 probation revocation fine“The suspension of the $200 probation revocation fine must be lifted. (People v. Guiffre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 430, 434-435.)” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Perez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 801 — Fines imposed at the time of probation revocation that exceed the original sentence are unauthorized.
- relied: People v. Guiffre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 430 — Upon probation revocation, the suspension of a probation revocation fine must be lifted.
- relied: People v. Isaac (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 143 — Section 1202.45 applied only to inmates subject to parole following a prison sentence at the time of the crime.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies established California law regarding the limits on fines that can be imposed upon probation revocation and the specific applicability of parole revocation fines based on the date of the offense. It accurately cites binding authority to strike unauthorized fines and modify the judgment accordingly.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter revoking Coyle's probation and sentencing him to a three-year local custody term, the trial court imposed a new $720 restitution fine, declared a $240 probation revocation fine due, suspended a $720 parole revocation fine, and purported to delete the previously ordered $200 fines. The Court of Appeal, accepting the People's concession, held the 2014 fines unauthorized, struck them, reinstated the original $200 restitution and $200 probation revocation fines (the latter now due), and affirmed the judgment as modified with directions to prepare an amended abstract.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition at probation revocation of a $720 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b) in place of the $200 restitution fine imposed when probation was granted in 2011“The $240 probation revocation fine and the $720 restitution fine, ordered in 2014, are unauthorized and must be stricken.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court A restitution fine imposed when probation is granted survives revocation of probation and remains in force; a second restitution fine imposed at sentencing after revocation is unauthorized (People v. Perez). The court did not expressly state a standard of review but treated the issue as a pure question of law correctable on appeal, which is consistent with the unauthorized-sentence doctrine. The result and authority match. |
Imposition of a $240 probation revocation fine under section 1202.44 at the 2014 sentencing, rather than lifting the suspension of the $200 probation revocation fine imposed in 2011“The suspension of the $200 probation revocation fine must be lifted.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Section 1202.44 requires the probation revocation fine to be imposed in the same amount as the restitution fine at the time probation is granted and to become due upon revocation; the correct course was to lift the suspension of the original $200 fine, not impose a new $240 fine (People v. Guiffre). The appellate court correctly struck the $240 fine and ordered the $200 fine due. |
Imposition and suspension of a $720 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 upon a local custody sentence for a 2010 offense“The parole revocation fine is unauthorized because in 2010, when Coyle committed his crime, section 1202.45 applied only to inmates who were subject to parole following a prison sentence.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court Coyle received a local custody term, not a prison sentence followed by parole, and the version of section 1202.45 in effect when he committed his offense in 2010 reached only sentences that included a period of parole; applying the later-expanded statute would raise ex post facto concerns (People v. Isaac). Striking the fine was correct. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Perez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 801 — A restitution fine imposed when probation is granted survives revocation of probation, and a second restitution fine imposed at sentencing after revocation is unauthorized and must be stricken.
- relied: People v. Guiffre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 430 — Upon revocation of probation the previously imposed and suspended probation revocation fine under section 1202.44 becomes due; the court may not impose a new fine in a different amount.
- relied: People v. Isaac (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 143 — A parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 may not be imposed on a defendant sentenced to local custody for an offense committed before the statute was amended to reach sentences not followed by parole.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion identifies each unauthorized fine, cites directly applicable Court of Appeal authority for each correction, and orders the precise modifications required by those authorities, with the People conceding. Although brief and without an express statement of the standard of review, nothing is skipped that affects the result.
Opinion
Filed 5/27/15 P. v. Coyle CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D066674
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD230128)
EDWARD KARL COYLE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M.
Szumowski, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions.
Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Allison V. Hawley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In May 2011, Edward Karl Coyle entered a negotiated guilty plea to receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (d))1 and admitted having previously been convicted of vehicle theft (§ 666.5, subd. (a), Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). In October, the court placed Coyle on three years' probation, imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended a $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44). In August 2014, the court revoked probation and sentenced Coyle to the three-year middle term in local custody. The court declared due a $240 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), imposed a $720 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended a $720 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45). The court then stated the previously ordered "[p]robation costs, fines, and fees will be deleted."
Coyle appeals, contending the court erred by replacing the $200 restitution fine with the $720 restitution fine, imposing the $240 probation revocation fine and ordering the parole revocation fine. The People properly concede the contentions.
The $240 probation revocation fine and the $720 restitution fine, ordered in 2014, are unauthorized and must be stricken. The $200 probation revocation fine and the $200 restitution fine, ordered in 2011, remain. (People v. Perez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 801, 804-805.) The suspension of the $200 probation revocation fine must be lifted. (People v. Guiffre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 430, 434-435.) The parole revocation fine is unauthorized because in 2010, when Coyle committed his crime, section 1202.45 applied 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 only to inmates who were subject to parole following a prison sentence. (People v. Isaac (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 143, 146.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b))
and a $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44). The latter fine is now due. The $240 probation revocation fine, the $720 restitution fine and the $720 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) are stricken. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward it to the appropriate agencies.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Isaac A135701 · 2014-02-27
- People v. Perez No. D056301; No. D056442 · 2011-05-19
- People v. Guiffre C057127 · 2008-10-08