60 Cal.App.5th 358
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- In May 2000 defendant Vincent Hwang, age 15, committed multiple serious offenses (including two counts of attempted murder and assault with a firearm) and was tried in adult court.
- A jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 74 years to life; the conviction became final in 2003 when the California Supreme Court denied review.
- In 2018 the CDCR recommended recall of sentence under Penal Code § 1170(d); at a 2019 § 1170(d) hearing the trial court stayed a firearm enhancement and resentenced Hwang to 64 years to life.
- Hwang moved for a transfer to juvenile court under Proposition 57 (amending Welf. & Inst. Code § 707) and Senate Bill No. 1391, arguing those ameliorative measures apply retroactively to him.
- The trial court denied transfer relief as Hwang’s judgment had been final in 2003; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding the § 1170(d) resentencing reopened finality and that Proposition 57 and SB 1391 apply, and remanded for juvenile adjudication.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 57 and SB 1391 apply retroactively | Prop 57 & SB1391 are ameliorative but Hwang’s judgment was final in 2003 so they do not apply | The measures are ameliorative and should apply because judgment is not final after resentencing | The measures are retroactive to judgments not final at enactment and apply here after resentencing |
| Whether resentencing under Penal Code § 1170(d)(1) reopens finality for retroactivity purposes | Resentencing does not reopen longstanding final judgments for retroactivity | A § 1170(d)(1) recall and resentencing replaces the original sentence and thus reopens finality, making the case eligible for ameliorative laws | Resentencing under § 1170(d)(1) reopens finality; the new sentence is not final and defendant may receive retroactive benefits |
| Whether SB 1391’s "not apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction" clause excludes defendants like Hwang | That clause indicates legislature intended to preserve prosecutorial transfer power for those who have aged out, so SB1391 should not apply to Hwang | Hwang was apprehended at 15; the clause does not exclude him and the bill’s ameliorative purpose supports retroactivity | The majority rejects the exclusion argument; because Hwang was apprehended at 15 the clause does not bar SB1391’s benefit; dissent maintained a narrower view |
| Remedy | Affirm trial court denial | Remand for transfer hearing/juvenile adjudication; apply SB1391 and related ameliorative provisions (including SB 620) | Reversed postjudgment order and remanded to trial court with directions to transfer to juvenile court for juvenile adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (establishes inference of retroactivity for ameliorative criminal law changes)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (applies Estrada to hold Proposition 57 retroactive to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (explains limits on Estrada where legislature clearly indicates otherwise)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (addresses discernible legislative intent limiting retroactivity)
- People v. Lopez, 56 Cal.App.5th 835 (holding that § 1170(d)(1) resentencing replaces the original sentence and reopens finality)
- People v. Maultsby, 53 Cal.4th 296 (statutory interpretation: plain language controls)
- People v. Alexander C., 34 Cal.App.5th 994 (discusses SB 1391 as furthering Proposition 57’s intent)