95 Cal.App.5th 870
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Elaine Estrada, a CalPERS member and City of La Habra Heights employee, pled no contest to a felony (Pen. Code § 502(c)(7)) on June 28, 2017 for job‑related conduct. The court accepted the plea and continued sentencing.
- Plea agreement provided restitution and that, after six months and compliance, the felony plea would be vacated and a misdemeanor plea entered; Estrada paid restitution.
- On January 3, 2018 the felony was reduced to a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 17(b); Estrada was sentenced to one year summary probation. On March 5, 2019 the court granted relief under Penal Code § 1203.4 and dismissed the case after probation completion.
- While on probation CalPERS received notice of the June 28, 2017 felony plea and determined Estrada forfeited a portion of accrued retirement benefits under Gov. Code § 7522.72 and could not return to CalPERS employment.
- An ALJ and the CalPERS Board upheld the forfeiture; Estrada petitioned for writ of administrative mandate in superior court, which denied relief. Estrada appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Estrada’s no contest plea constituted a "conviction" under Gov. Code § 7522.72 triggering forfeiture | Estrada: Plea was later reduced and dismissed, so she was not convicted of a felony for forfeiture purposes | CalPERS: A no contest plea admits guilt and constitutes a conviction; forfeiture attaches at date of conviction | Held: No contest plea to felony is a conviction for § 7522.72; forfeiture triggered on plea date |
| Whether postconviction reduction to misdemeanor under Penal Code § 17(b) negates forfeiture | Estrada: Reduction to misdemeanor means no felony conviction; benefits should be reinstated | CalPERS: § 7522.72 expressly preserves forfeiture "notwithstanding any reduction in sentence" | Held: Reduction under § 17(b) does not undo forfeiture; benefits remain forfeited |
| Whether dismissal/expungement under Penal Code § 1203.4 nullifies forfeiture | Estrada: Dismissal/expungement removes conviction consequences, so forfeiture should be vacated | CalPERS: § 7522.72 treats expungement as irrelevant; only a reversal restores benefits | Held: § 1203.4 dismissal does not erase conviction for forfeiture; forfeiture remains unless conviction is reversed |
| Validity/effect of criminal court’s nunc pro tunc order (Aug 6, 2019) claiming no felony conviction on June 28, 2017 | Estrada: Nunc pro tunc order shows she was not convicted of a felony on plea date | CalPERS: Nunc pro tunc cannot rewrite a judicial act or correct a nonclerical error after the fact | Held: Nunc pro tunc was not a proper correction of a clerical error and does not negate that Estrada stood convicted on June 28, 2017 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 53 Cal.2d 370 (establishes that a guilty plea constitutes a conviction)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (discusses wobblers and effects of § 17(b) reductions)
- Danser v. Public Employees’ Retirement System, 240 Cal.App.4th 885 (forfeiture statute application despite later § 17 and § 1203.4 relief)
- People v. Vasquez, 25 Cal.4th 1225 (§ 1203.4 dismissal does not render a conviction a legal nullity)
- Hipsher v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assn., 58 Cal.App.5th 671 (purpose of § 7522.72: protect pension integrity and penalize job‑related felonies)
- Wilmot v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Assn., 60 Cal.App.5th 631 (upholding constitutionality and operation of § 7522.72)
- Estate of Eckstrom, 54 Cal.2d 540 (limits of nunc pro tunc to clerical corrections)
- In re Candelario, 3 Cal.3d 702 (nunc pro tunc cannot revise deliberate judicial discretion)