People v. Bradshaw
246 Cal. App. 4th 1251
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Patrick Bradshaw pleaded no contest (Aug 11, 2014) to possession of methamphetamine and immediately received felony probation with nine months jail; he waived probation referral so no full probation report was prepared.
- At plea/sentencing the probation report noted possible ineligibility for Proposition 36 (§ 1210.1) based on prior drug convictions, a recent felony, and out‑of‑state courtesy supervision, but the trial court made no formal eligibility determination.
- After sentencing but before the conviction was final, voters enacted Proposition 47 (Nov 4, 2014), which reclassified certain drug felonies as misdemeanors and created § 1170.18 procedures for resentencing or redesignation.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) he was wrongly denied mandatory Proposition 36 probation (§ 1210.1) and (2) he is entitled to resentencing under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18).
- The appellate record lacked sufficient factual detail (criminal history/probation report) to determine whether any § 1210.1 disqualifications applied, so the court could not resolve eligibility on appeal.
- Although Proposition 47 relief is available only through the § 1170.18 procedures (petition/application in the trial court), the court remanded to the trial court and deemed the defendant to have filed the § 1170.18 petition/application; it directed the trial court to resolve § 1170.18 issues first and then determine § 1210.1 eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant forfeited challenge to denial of Proposition 36 (§ 1210.1) probation by not raising it below | People: defendant waived sentencing claims by failing to raise eligibility at trial | Bradshaw: placement in Prop 36 is mandatory, not discretionary, so claim is not forfeited | Not forfeited; remand required for trial court to determine § 1210.1 eligibility because record is inadequate |
| Whether appellate court must remand for automatic resentencing under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) | People: relief is available only by petition/application under § 1170.18 in trial court, not automatic on appeal | Bradshaw: requests remand for a Proposition 47 resentencing hearing (not automatic reduction) | Court: Proposition 47 relief is limited to § 1170.18 procedures; defendants must petition/apply in trial court; appellate relief is inappropriate, but court deems petition filed and remands to trial court to proceed under § 1170.18 before resolving § 1210.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Guzman, 35 Cal.4th 577 (mandatory Prop 36 probation for eligible nonviolent drug offenders)
- People v. Esparza, 107 Cal.App.4th 691 (eligibility for Prop 36 is not a discretionary sentencing choice; placement is mandatory if eligible)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (waiver doctrine applies to discretionary sentencing choices)
- People v. Shabazz, 237 Cal.App.4th 303 (Prop 47 relief limited to § 1170.18 procedures; petition in trial court required)
- People v. Scarbrough, 240 Cal.App.4th 916 (same: no automatic resentencing under Prop 47; § 1170.18 is the exclusive remedy)