Filed 10/8/15 P. v. Reza CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not 

certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been 

certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERIC EDWARD REZA,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B260930

(Super. Ct. No. 2009044921)

(Ventura County)

Eric Edward Reza appeals the trial court's order resentencing him 

under Proposition 47 with credit for time served and placing him on one year of 

supervised parole. (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18.) Appellant contends the court erred 

in concluding that his excess custody credits do not apply against his term of 

parole as contemplated in In re Sosa (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 1002. We recently 

 

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

concluded otherwise in People v. McCoy (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 431 (McCoy)

and reach the same conclusion here.2 Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In February 2010, appellant pled no contest to possession of heroin 

(Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted serving a prior prison term 

(§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him 

on three years felony probation. In July 2010, the court revoked probation and 

sentenced appellant to three years in state prison. In October 2011, appellant was 

released on parole. Parole was subsequently revoked and reinstated in April 

2014 and September 2014.

In December 2014, while appellant was still on parole, he was 

resentenced under Proposition 47. The court redesignated appellant's conviction 

as a misdemeanor and ordered him to serve 365 days in county jail with credit 

for time served. Appellant was also placed on supervised parole for one year in 

accordance with subdivision (b) of section 1170.18. The court rejected 

appellant's claim that he was entitled to have his excess custody credits applied 

against his term of parole as contemplated in In re Sosa (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 

1002 (Sosa). In lieu of a separate written ruling, the court "transfer[red]" the 

transcript of its ruling on the same issue earlier that day in People v. Jonathan 

 

2 The Supreme Court has granted review of our prior case reaching the 

same conclusion (People v. Hickman (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 984, review 

granted Aug. 26, 2015), as well as Division Four, District Three's case reaching 

the opposite conclusion (People v. Morales (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 42, review 

granted Aug. 26, 2015). Appellant's petition for review of McCoy is also 

currently pending.
3

Hollis Hickman, Superior Court Case No. 2007017002.3

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the court erred in concluding that Sosa credits 

do not apply against a term of supervised parole imposed under Proposition 47. 

He claims that "[t]he Penal Code, case law, equal protection, and ex post facto 

prohibition all dictate that excess "Sosa" credits should be deducted from any 

term of parole." We fully considered and rejected this claim in McCoy, and do 

the same here.

In McCoy, we concluded that parole supervision under Proposition 

47 is not a "term of imprisonment" as defined in subdivision (c) of section 

2900.5. We analogized to People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635, in 

which we held that Sosa credits do not apply against a term of postrelease 

community supervision (PRCS) imposed under Proposition 36. (McCoy, supra, 

239 Cal.App.4th at p. 435.) We also rejected the claim that Proposition 47 

violated equal protection by denying Sosa credits to defendants resentenced as 

misdemeanants while granting such credits to those convicted of violent felonies. 

We reasoned that "Proposition 47 supervised parole is a rational resentencing 

scheme designed to rehabilitate eligible drug offenders previously committed to 

state prison. It does not discriminate against a suspect class. [Citations.] Nor is 

Proposition 47 supervised parole restricted by the traditional parole rules 

discussed in Sosa. Appellant cites no authority that he has an equal protection 

 

3 As we have noted, our opinion affirming the trial court's ruling in this 

case is currently under Supreme Court review. We denied the People's request 

for judicial notice of a partial transcript of the trial court's ruling. On our own 

motion, we took judicial notice of the complete transcript of the subject hearing, 

the accompanying reporter's certificate, the brief the People filed in support of 

their claim that appellant is not entitled to Sosa credits, and the minute order of 

the court's ruling.
4

right to 'pick and choose' what parts of Proposition 47 he agrees to. [Citations.] 

(Id. at p. 437.)

In his brief, appellant merely refers to section 2900.5 and then 

reiterates the equal protection argument we rejected in McCoy. Although his 

brief refers to "the ex post facto prohibition," he offers no specific argument or 

authority to support an ex post facto claim. The point is thus forfeited. (People 

v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 881.) Appellant's attempt to invoke "fundamental

fairness" is also unavailing. He gives us no reason to deviate from McCoy, and 

we decline to do so.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.
Brian J. Back, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Stephen P. Lipson, Public Defender, Michael C. McMahon, Chief 

Deputy, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary 

Sanchez, Michael Katz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.