Wilcox

The People v. Wilcox

Good Law
158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 502·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 508·217 Cal. App. 4th 618·2013 WL 3199821
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 26, 2013C069826California2,750 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nicholson, J.

Numerous felonies are no longer punished by confinement in state prison but are instead punished by confinement in county jail for the term prescribed for the underlying offense. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(1), (2).) Felons sentenced to county jail may have a concluding portion of the county jail term suspended and be placed under the mandatory supervision of the county probation department. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B)(i).) Defendants sentenced to county jail are not subject to parole or any other form of supervision upon the conclusion of their term. (§§ 3000 et seq., 3450; People v. Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 664, 672 [ 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 742 ].)

These unique circumstances are bom of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 12, §1).

The Realignment Act’s sentencing scheme applies only to defendants “sentenced on or after October 1, 2011.” (§ 1170, subd. (h)(6).) The question before us is whether the Realignment Act applies when the trial court imposes a state prison sentence and stays execution before October 1, 2011, and executes the sentence after that date.

In People v. Clytus (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.