People v. Adelmann, 4 Cal. 5th 1071

Defendant Adelmann pleaded guilty in San Diego County (felony drug possession and DUI), was placed on felony probation, and his case was transferred to Riverside County under Penal Code §1203.9 because he lived in Riverside.
After Proposition 47 reduced certain felonies to misdemeanors, Adelmann filed a §1170.18 resentencing petition in Riverside seeking recall of sentence and misdemeanor reclassification.
The People opposed on the sole ground that §1170.18 requires filing in the trial court that entered the judgment (San Diego). Riverside denied that procedural defect and granted relief; the People appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The legal question resolved by the Supreme Court: whether a §1170.18 resentencing petition must be filed in the original sentencing court despite an inter-county probation transfer under §1203.9.
The Supreme Court held that §1170.18 controls: petitions must be filed in the original sentencing court (or an assigned judge there), and §1203.9’s transfer of probationary jurisdiction does not change that venue requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Where must a §1170.18 resentencing petition be filed when probation was transferred under §1203.9?	§1170.18 requires filing in the trial court that entered judgment (original sentencing court); it is the later, more specific statute.	§1203.9 vests the receiving court with "entire jurisdiction" upon transfer, so the receiving county (Riverside) is proper venue.	Petition must be filed in the original sentencing court; §1170.18 trumps §1203.9 on this point.

People v. Gonzales, 2 Cal.5th 858 (discussing Proposition 47 purpose and scope)
Curry, 1 Cal.App.5th 1073 (holding resentencing petitions must be filed in original sentencing court)
People v. Klockman, 59 Cal.App.4th 621 (explaining exclusivity of jurisdiction absent a §1203.9 transfer)
Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey, 24 Cal.4th 301 (later and more specific statutes control over earlier general ones)