State Supreme Court justices Thursday issued a ruling stemming from an Orange County case that would not allow defendants who get a felony reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop. 47 the right to apply credit for time served behind bars toward parole.
Josue Vargas Morales pleaded guilty in March 2014 to felony possession of heroin and was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. He was given credit for serving 220 days.
In August of 2014 he was released to community supervision for three years. After voters approved Prop. 47 in November 2014, which allowed defendants to have some nonviolent felonies reduced to misdemeanors, Morales petitioned for a reduced punishment.
Morales’ sentence was recalled, his felony was reduced to a misdemeanor and he was sentenced to time served. Morales, however, failed to convince the judge that he should be put on parole, which was imposed for one year.
Appellate justices rejected Morales’ argument that he should not have been resentenced, but agreed that his excess custody time should reduce his parole commitment.
The state’s high court pointed to an analysis of Prop. 47 that was provided for voters to explain why excess custody credits cannot be applied toward parole.
In the voter information material it reads: “Offenders who are resentenced would be required to be on state parole for one year, unless the judge chooses to remove that requirement.”
The supreme court justices added that analysis was “easy to understand and entirely unambiguous. It promised voters that offenders would be on parole for one year unles the judge deemed it not necessary.
Any reasonable voter would have understood the sentence to mean exactly what it says… Some voters who were concerned about simply releasing persons who had committed what had been felonies might have been reassured by this promise, a reassurance that might have persuaded them to vote for the proposition.”
— Wire reports