People v. Mestre CA4/3

DISCUSSION

In his opening brief filed in June 2015, Mestre contends the trial court erred by imposing a one year parole period. He argues a person on PRCS (§ 3450 et seq.) is not currently serving his sentence (§ 1170.18, subd. (a)) and is therefore not subject to parole (§ 1170.18, subd. (d); cf. § 1170.18, subd. (f)). Alternatively, he asserts the trial court abused its discretion by imposing parole because he had served his entire term of imprisonment and more than one year on PRCS, and the court erred in failing to apply excess custody credits to reduce his parole term. He also notes the court imposed a $280 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) at the original sentencing in May 2013, but did not address the fine at the resentencing hearing in January 2015. He asserts the court’s failure to exercise discretion concerning the fine at the resentencing hearing was an abuse of discretion, and he is entitled to have the remaining credits that exceed his time in custody and on community supervision applied to reduce his restitution fine at the rate of $30 per day (§ 2900.5, subd. (a)). The trial court did not err in recalling the sentence under section 1170.18, subdivision (a),…