People v. Abdallah, 246 Cal. App. 4th 736

Defendant Rafat Abdallah was convicted (June 18, 2014) of possession of methamphetamine while armed, possession of a firearm as a felon, and simple possession.
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of five years, including a one-year enhancement under Penal Code § 667.5(b) for a prior 2002 felony that resulted in a prison term; the enhancement applies unless the defendant remained free of both prison custody and a new felony conviction for five years after release.
Abdallah had been released on parole from the 2002 conviction in February 2005 and was later arrested in October 2009 and convicted in 2011 for possession of methamphetamine (then a felony wobble).
Before sentencing in the present case, the trial court recalled and resentenced Abdallah’s 2011 conviction under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18), reducing it to a misdemeanor “for all purposes.”
The principal question: whether the § 667.5(b) one-year prior-prison-term enhancement can be applied when the intervening 2011 conviction was resentenced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 before imposition of the enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 667.5(b) enhancement applies when the intervening conviction was resentenced to a misdemeanor under Prop. 47 before sentencing	People: Abdallah did reoffend within five years of his 2002 release; the fact the 2011 conviction later became a misdemeanor is irrelevant	Abdallah: Once the 2011 conviction was resentenced to a misdemeanor "for all purposes" under § 1170.18(k), it no longer counts as a felony conviction for § 667.5(b) washout inquiry	The enhancement does not apply; court struck the one-year § 667.5(b) enhancement because the 2011 conviction had been redesignated a misdemeanor at the time of sentencing

People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (when a prior wobbler is validly reduced to a misdemeanor under § 17(b), it no longer qualifies as a prior felony for enhancement purposes)
People v. Ruff, 244 Cal.App.4th 935 (discusses application of Proposition 47 to past convictions)
People v. Williams, 245 Cal.App.4th 458 (addresses whether Prop. 47 redesignations may be used as predicates for sentencing enhancements)
In re Preston, 176 Cal.App.4th 1109 (explains § 667.5(b) elements and the ‘‘washout’’ rule)
People v. Tenner, 6 Cal.4th 559 (sets forth requirements for prior prison term enhancements under § 667.5)

Disposition: The one-year § 667.5(b) enhancement was stricken; judgment affirmed as modified. Trial court to issue corrected abstract of judgment.