People v. Canedos
B308433
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2022Background
- In 2016 Canedos pleaded guilty to four felon-in-possession–type counts; the court suspended execution and imposed four years of probation.
- In December 2019 he committed assault with a deadly weapon; new charges were filed and the court summarily revoked his 2016 probation.
- In September 2020 a jury convicted him of the 2019 assault; the court executed the suspended 2016 sentence and imposed an aggregate of 6 years 8 months (4 years for the assault plus consecutive terms for the 2016 counts).
- Assembly Bill No. 1950, effective January 1, 2021, reduced maximum felony probation from five years to two years.
- Canedos’s appeal of the revocation/sentencing was pending when AB 1950 took effect; he argued the new two-year maximum governed and the court lacked authority to revoke probation for conduct occurring after that two-year period.
- The Court of Appeal held AB 1950 applies retroactively to Canedos, vacated the revocation, struck the portion of the prison term attributable to the revoked probation, reinstated probation limited to two years (terminated nunc pro tunc to Jan 12, 2018), and resentenced him to four years for the 2020 assault conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AB 1950 is retroactive to defendants whose convictions/probation revocations were not final when the law took effect | People: AB 1950 is ameliorative but should not apply to every pending case where revocation already occurred before effective date | Canedos: Estrada presumption makes ameliorative statutes retroactive to all cases not final on the effective date, including his | Held: AB 1950 is retroactive; Estrada/Esquivel controls — silence on retroactivity means full retroactivity |
| Whether AB 1950 applies when the court found a probation violation before the law’s effective date but the matter was still on appeal (i.e., revocation not final) | People: A final revocation should block retroactive relief; law contains no mechanism to shorten existing probation | Canedos: Revocation was not final for Estrada purposes (appeal pending), so he may benefit from the ameliorative change | Held: Revocation was not final; Esquivel shows the prosecution was not complete, so defendant gets retroactive benefit |
| Whether tolling statutes or revocation timing (1203.2/1203.3/Leiva) permit revocation after the shorter AB 1950 probation period | People: Tolling and revocation timing justify upholding revocation in some cases; courts shouldn’t be penalized for prosecutorial delay | Canedos: Tolling does not save revocations for misconduct occurring after the new maximum probation period | Held: Tolling rationale (Leiva/Kuhnel) does not apply where conduct occurred outside the amended maximum; court lacked authority to revoke for post-expiration conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (presumption that ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively when convictions are not final)
- People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (recent Supreme Court application of Estrada: a revocation not yet final qualifies for retroactivity)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (legislative creation of special mechanisms can indicate limited retroactivity)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (new diversion/remedial statutes applied retroactively pending direct review)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (Proposition-style change applied retroactively where case not final)
- People v. Burton, 58 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1 (applied AB 1950 retroactively to probationers)
- People v. Butler, 75 Cal.App.5th 216 (held court lacked authority to revoke probation that had effectively expired under AB 1950)
- People v. Kuhnel, 75 Cal.App.5th 726 (contrasting view on tolling/revocation timing)
- People v. Faial, 75 Cal.App.5th 738 (held AB 1950 did not apply to probationers whose revocation/finality occurred before effective date)
- People v. Leiva, 56 Cal.4th 498 (statutory tolling of probation to preserve revocation authority)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (full-sentencing rule on remand)
- People v. Rossi, 18 Cal.3d 295 (Estrada retroactivity can require reversal even where law decriminalizes prior conduct)