195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 3
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2013 Harris pled guilty to felony grand theft from a person (§ 487(c)) under a plea bargain: he admitted a prior strike, received a six-year state prison term, and the People dismissed a robbery charge (§ 211) and related allegations.
- Harris had strong evidence against him (victim identification, phone found near him) and maximum exposure of 15 years if tried on robbery and priors.
- In 2014 voters passed Proposition 47, reclassifying certain thefts under $950 to misdemeanors and creating § 1170.18 to allow resentencing petitions for qualifying prisoners, including those convicted by plea.
- Harris petitioned under § 1170.18 to recall sentence; the People conceded eligibility but moved to withdraw from the plea and reinstate the dismissed robbery charge, arguing Proposition 47 deprived them of the bargained-for benefit.
- The trial court granted both Harris’s resentencing and the People’s motion to withdraw; Harris sought writ relief. The Court of Appeal denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Harris's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People may withdraw from a plea and reinstate dismissed charges when Proposition 47 reclassifies the plea-bargained felony as a misdemeanor | Proposition 47 permits resentencing after plea; the plea should not be rescinded and dismissed counts reinstated — plea bargains should remain effective despite law changes | Reclassification to a misdemeanor fundamentally alters the bargained-for term (prison exposure) and deprives the People of their benefit; under People v. Collins the People may withdraw and reinstate charges | Held for the People: reduction of the plea-bargained felony to a misdemeanor under Prop 47 deprived the People of the benefit of the bargain, so the People may withdraw and reinstate previously dismissed charges |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) (when a change in law eliminates defendant’s vulnerability to the bargained-for punishment, the People may restore dismissed counts)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013) (plea agreements are generally deemed to incorporate the possibility of subsequent changes in law affecting statutory consequences)
- T.W. v. Superior Court, 236 Cal.App.4th 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (Prop 47 relief may apply to convictions obtained by plea)
- In re Blessing, 129 Cal.App.3d 1026 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (prosecution permitted to withdraw from plea where a change in law reduced the negotiated sentence)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2685 (U.S. 2011) (plurality: defendants sentenced under plea agreements may be eligible for later sentence reductions following retroactive guideline amendments)