People v. Boatwright
248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 800
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- In 2013 police executed a search of a Ukiah residence and seized large quantities of marijuana; Boatwright was detained and later charged with felony cultivation and possession for sale.
- Under a negotiated plea Boatwright pleaded guilty to a single felony count of accessory (Pen. Code § 32); the original felony charges were dismissed. He received probation and some custody credits.
- After multiple probation violations, the trial court revoked probation and imposed a two-year prison term; defense sought resentencing under Proposition 64 during the revocation proceedings.
- Trial court denied the Proposition 64 petition, reasoning accessory is not expressly listed in Prop. 64’s resentencing statute (Health & Saf. Code § 11361.8), and permanently revoked probation.
- The appellate court considered whether a conviction for felony accessory is categorically ineligible for Prop. 64 resentencing when the underlying felony would be reduced to a misdemeanor by Prop. 64.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Boatwright eligible for resentencing because his accessory conviction was predicated on marijuana offenses that Prop. 64 reduced to misdemeanors, and the prosecution presented no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felony accessory conviction is categorically ineligible for Prop. 64 resentencing because § 32 is not listed in § 11361.8 | AG: Record does not show accessory was predicated on marijuana offenses reducible by Prop. 64; underlying facts unclear | Boatwright: Accessory conviction premised on marijuana felonies that Prop. 64 reduced to misdemeanors; § 11361.8 should allow resentencing | Court: Accessory conviction is eligible when the underlying completed felony would have been a misdemeanor under Prop. 64; here record shows it was marijuana-related and no clear and convincing contrary evidence was presented |
| Proper test for eligibility under § 11361.8 | AG: Focus on enumerated statutes | Boatwright: Eligibility depends on whether petitioner would have been guilty of a lesser/no offense under Prop. 64 | Court: Apply the substantive test—would the defendant have been guilty of an offense or a lesser offense under Prop. 64—enumeration is not limiting |
| Burden of proof at petition stage | AG: Trial court relied on concerns about probation violations | Boatwright: § 11361.8 presumes petitioner qualifies unless opposing party proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence | Court: Trial court must presume eligibility absent clear and convincing proof to disqualify; prosecutor failed to meet that burden |
| Relevance of non-marijuana contraband in the residence | AG: Presence of methamphetamine suggests accessory may rest on non-reduced felony | Boatwright: Factual basis for plea only mentions marijuana processing; no evidence he was involved with meth | Court: Stipulated factual basis referenced only marijuana; meth evidence not tied to Boatwright; thus inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Medina, 24 Cal.App.5th 61 (discussing Prop. 64 eligibility and distinguishing conspiracy wobbler holdings)
- People v. Martinez, 4 Cal.5th 647 (holding that listing statutes in a resentencing provision does not limit eligibility to convictions under those specific statutes)
- People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (applying the substantive "would have been a misdemeanor" test for resentencing eligibility)
- People v. Nuckles, 56 Cal.4th 601 (describing elements of accessory liability)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (principle that identical statutory language should receive consistent interpretation)
- People v. Smit, 24 Cal.App.5th 596 (discussing presumption of eligibility under § 11361.8)