People v. Acosta
202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 614
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant Juan Gabriel Acosta was originally sentenced (after plea) on multiple cases to an aggregate 13-year prison term that included six one-year prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5(b)) imposed as part of the aggregate sentence. The court purported to "dismiss" the six enhancements in the instant case because they had already been applied in a co‑related case.
- The trial court suspended execution and placed Acosta on probation; probation was later revoked and the previously suspended 13‑year aggregate sentence was ordered executed.
- After Proposition 47, Acosta petitioned to recall and reduce certain felony convictions to misdemeanors in all three cases; the court resentenced two cases to misdemeanors and designated three prior felonies underlying three of the six prior‑term enhancements as misdemeanors under § 1170.18(f)‑(g).
- On resentencing the remaining felony (§ 69) in the instant case, the court imposed the middle term (2 years) plus six years for the six prior prison term enhancements, yielding an aggregate eight‑year term in that case.
- Acosta appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to reimpose the six prior prison term enhancements that had been "dismissed" in the instant case and that Proposition 47 barred imposing enhancements based on prior convictions later redesignated as misdemeanors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose the six prior prison term enhancements on resentencing after they had been "dismissed" in the instant case | Enhancements attach to the defendant/status and were part of the aggregate sentence; they did not vanish and could be applied when resentencing the remaining felony | The court exceeded jurisdiction by "resurrecting" enhancements that were dismissed in the instant case | Court held enhancements attach to aggregate sentence, not to a particular count/case, so reimposition was proper |
| Whether prior prison term enhancements survive when the underlying prior felonies are redesignated as misdemeanors under Prop 47 (§ 1170.18) | Enhancements remain valid because § 1170.18(k) makes redesignation affect the "status" of the conviction for limited purposes and does not erase prior prison service or enhancements | Redesignation erases felony status "for all purposes," so enhancements based on those prior felonies cannot be imposed | Court held § 1170.18(k) does not repeal or negate prior prison term enhancements; prior prison service remains a separate status permitting enhancements |
| Whether enhancements can be imposed only once across co‑related cases forming an aggregate sentence | Enhancements are status enhancements imposed once on the aggregate sentence; they were already imposed as part of the aggregate but became inapplicable only where the linked current offense becomes a misdemeanor | Defendant argued the dismissal in the instant case was a true final elimination of those enhancements for future sentencing | Court held enhancements are imposed once on the aggregate sentence and are not tied to a single case; they did not need "resurrection" when other cases were redesignated and were properly applied on resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 (explaining prior prison term enhancements relate to offender status and are added once in forming the aggregate sentence)
- People v. Coronado, 12 Cal.4th 145 (same principle that prior prison term enhancements reflect recidivist status)
- People v. Edwards, 195 Cal.App.4th 1051 (discussing that prior prison term enhancements are status enhancements imposed once on an aggregate sentence)
- People v. Prather, 50 Cal.3d 428 (discussing relation between prison term service and felony convictions)
- Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245 (canon against judicial enlargement of statutes beyond their text)