Legal Opinion

People v. Isaac

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 27, 2014No. A135701PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BANKE, J.

Defendant appeals the imposition of a “parole revocation restitution fine” imposed under Penal Code section 1202.45, 1 asserting his sentence, under California’s Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1), does not include a period of parole. The Attorney General does not contend the fine can be sustained under section 1202.45, but urges it can be upheld under a broad reading of section 1202.44. We conclude there was no statutory basis to impose the fine on defendant and order it struck.

Background

We recite only the facts pertinent to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. SamaniegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. People v. CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. People v. FandinolaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. People v. TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. Young v. McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. GutierrezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  2. People v. PrestonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. In re Dominick D.California Court of Appeal · 2022
  4. People v. AlvarezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2025
  5. People v. Escbedo CA5California Court of Appeal · 2015

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API