75 Cal.App.5th 216
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2017 Butler pleaded no contest to unlawful possession of ammunition and admitted two one-year prison priors; the agreed disposition suspended a 5-year aggregate prison term and placed him on five years felony probation.
- Butler’s probation was summarily revoked in February 2020 after multiple violations; the court later admitted a violation and imposed a 3-year term but struck the two one-year priors, resulting in 320 days after credits.
- Assembly Bill No. 1950, effective January 1, 2021, reduced the maximum felony probation term to two years (with limited exceptions).
- Butler argued AB 1950 applied retroactively so the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation; the People conceded lack of jurisdiction but asked to be allowed to withdraw/renegotiate the plea on remand.
- The Court of Appeal agreed AB 1950 applies retroactively, held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation, and rejected the People’s request to reopen the plea.
- The court reversed and remanded with directions to modify Butler’s probation to two years, set aside the prison sentence, reinstate and then terminate probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AB 1950 applies retroactively so the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation | AB 1950 does not defeat the trial court’s earlier-revocation jurisdiction because revocation began before the statute’s effective date | AB 1950 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases; the court lost jurisdiction to revoke once the new two-year cap took effect | AB 1950 applies retroactively to cases not yet final; the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Butler’s probation |
| Whether the People may withdraw or renegotiate the plea on remand after AB 1950 reduces/invalidates plea terms | People should be allowed to withdraw or renegotiate the plea (follow Stamps) | A negotiated plea does not insulate parties from retroactive ameliorative laws; prosecution may not reopen plea (follow Doe/Harris, France, Stewart) | The People may not reopen or renegotiate the plea; the court must apply AB 1950 and modify the probation term without prosecution consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (the Legislature may modify or invalidate plea-agreement terms for public policy)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (prosecution not entitled to set aside plea when defendant seeks retroactive relief under ameliorative law)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (where new law gives trial court discretion to strike an enhancement, prosecution may withdraw from plea on remand)
- People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.App.5th 1065 (distinguishing Stamps; ameliorative mandatory changes that invalidate plea terms apply retroactively and do not permit prosecution to reopen plea)
- People v. France, 58 Cal.App.5th 714 (same distinction between discretionary and mandatory retroactive changes to plea terms)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (presumption that ameliorative statutory changes apply retroactively to nonfinal cases)