People v. Isaac
California Court of Appeal
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
- People v. SamaniegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- People v. CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- People v. FandinolaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- People v. TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Young v. McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. GutierrezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- People v. PrestonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- In re Dominick D.California Court of Appeal · 2022
- People v. AlvarezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2025
- People v. Escbedo CA5California Court of Appeal · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.