Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
1 Cal. 5th 984
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Defendant Morris Glen Harris Jr. pleaded guilty in 2013 to grand theft from the person (Pen. Code § 487(c)) and admitted a prior robbery conviction in exchange for dismissal of a robbery charge and other priors and a six-year prison term.
- Defendant was sentenced to six years under that plea agreement.
- In 2014 voters passed Proposition 47, reclassifying certain nonviolent felonies (including grand theft from the person) as misdemeanors and adding Penal Code § 1170.18, which allows eligible persons convicted by plea or trial to petition for resentencing as misdemeanants.
- Defendant petitioned under § 1170.18 to recall his sentence and be resentenced as a misdemeanant. The People moved to withdraw from the plea agreement and sought reinstatement of the original robbery charge, arguing resentencing would deprive them of the bargain.
- Trial court and a divided Court of Appeal allowed the People to withdraw; the California Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding the People may not rescind the plea agreement when defendant seeks resentencing under Proposition 47.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People may withdraw a plea agreement and reinstate dismissed charges when a defendant seeks resentencing under Prop 47 | Allow withdrawal because the six-year sentence was a material part of the bargain and resentencing deprives the People of the agreed benefit (rely on Collins) | Plea agreements incorporate future changes in law; Prop 47 expressly applies to convictions by plea and permits resentencing, so People cannot rescind the plea (rely on Doe v. Harris) | The People may not withdraw the plea; § 1170.18 applies to pleas and precludes rescission when defendant seeks Prop 47 resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.3d 208 (recognizing prosecution may seek to revive dismissed counts if legislative change removes defendant's vulnerability to sentence)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (plea agreements are generally subject to subsequent changes in law; parties may not be insulated from retroactive statutory changes)
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (discussing scope of offenses reduced by Proposition 47)
- People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (plea bargaining is integral to criminal justice; promotes finality and efficiency)