82 Cal.App.5th 735
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In May 2019 Bowden struck and killed a pedestrian while driving under the influence; she pled guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code § 191.5(b)) in February 2020.
- The negotiated recommendation called for a two-year custodial term (one year county jail, one year mandatory supervision), but the trial court imposed five years of probation (one year custody followed by four years of supervision) with the parties' agreement.
- Assembly Bill 1950 (effective Jan. 1, 2021) amended Penal Code § 1203.1 to limit most felony probation terms to two years, with an exception for offenses that include specific probation lengths in their provisions.
- The Marin County Probation Department asked the trial court whether Bowden’s probation should be reduced to two years; the trial court denied relief and concluded AB 1950 did not apply.
- Bowden petitioned for a writ of mandate; the Court of Appeal concluded AB 1950 applies retroactively to probationers like Bowden and reduces her felony probation term to two years, and it declined to remand to allow the People or the trial court to withdraw from the plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bowden) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does AB 1950’s two-year felony probation limit apply to a § 191.5(b) conviction when Vehicle Code §§ 23152/23153 (lesser included offenses) prescribe 3–5 years of probation? | AB 1950 is controlling and retroactive; § 191.5(b) does not itself specify a probation length, so the two-year cap applies. | Because the lesser included Vehicle Code offenses mandate 3–5 years, treating the greater offense as subject to a shorter cap is absurd and the exception for offenses that "include specific probation lengths" should cover § 191.5(b). | The two-year felony probation limit applies; § 191.5(b) is not excluded by the Vehicle Code's probation provisions for lesser included offenses. |
| If AB 1950 shortens probation, must the case be remanded to allow the People or the trial court to withdraw consent to the original plea? | No; AB 1950 automatically shortens probation and the prosecution/court should not be allowed to veto the statutory amelioration for pleas. | Under People v. Stamps, courts/prosecutors should have opportunity to withdraw from a negotiated plea if a later ameliorative change alters the agreed sentence. | No remand. The court held the People and trial court may not withdraw agreement; the reduced probation term applies without reopening the plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (retroactivity principle for ameliorative criminal statutes)
- Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1036 (1999) (plain statutory text governs legislative intent)
- People v. Tran, 61 Cal.4th 1160 (2015) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (2020) (remand/withdrawal framework when courts later exercise new sentencing discretion)
- People v. Cook, 60 Cal.4th 922 (2015) (legislature may create sentencing ‘‘anomalies’’ through line-drawing)
- People v. Medina, 41 Cal.4th 685 (2007) (definition and effect of lesser included offenses)
- People v. Vasquez, 63 Cal.App.5th 107 (2021) (example of vacating a conviction where lesser/greater sentence conflicts)