People v. Carrea
198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 753
Cal. Ct. App. 4th2016Background
- In 2004 Carrea was convicted of felony theft (Pen. Code § 484) and burglary (§ 459) and served a prison term.
- In 2012 he was tried and convicted of inflicting corporal injury on a former cohabitant (§ 273.5(a)) and admitted three prison-prior enhancements (§ 667.5(b)).
- In January 2013 the trial court sentenced him to a total of seven years, including three consecutive one-year prison-prior enhancements.
- In April 2015 Carrea obtained relief under Prop 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18) redesignating his 2004 felony convictions as misdemeanors.
- Carrea moved to dismiss/strike the 2013 prison-prior enhancement that was based on those 2004 convictions; the trial court denied the motion and he appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding § 1170.18 does not authorize retroactive striking/dismissal of final, pre-Prop 47 sentence enhancements based on convictions later redesignated under § 1170.18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170.18 permits retroactive redesignation/dismissal/striking of a pre-Act, final sentence enhancement based on prior convictions later redesignated as misdemeanors | Carrea: § 1170.18(k) declares redesignated felonies are misdemeanors "for all purposes," so the prior-based enhancement must be dismissed | People: § 1170.18 applies to convictions, not to sentence enhancements; § 1170.18(n) preserves finality for cases not within the Act | Court: No; § 1170.18 does not provide retroactive relief to strike/dismiss final pre-Act enhancements based on later redesignated convictions |
| Whether Flores or Park support retroactive relief to erase an already-final enhancement | Carrea: Flores and the "for all purposes" language (as in Park) imply retroactivity to prevent enhancement effects | People: Flores and Park apply prospectively or to nonfinal judgments and do not authorize retroactive relief to disturb final judgments | Court: Flores and Park are inapposite; they support prospective effect, not retroactive vacatur of final enhancements |
| Whether voter intent or Estrada require retroactive application of Prop 47 to prior final judgments | Carrea: Voter intent to reduce prison population and Estrada's retroactivity principle support relief | People: Act's plain language and § 1170.18(n) show no intent to disturb final judgments; Estrada applies only when judgment is nonfinal | Court: No; judgment here was final before Prop 47 and Estrada does not compel retroactive relief |
| Whether denial of relief violates equal protection | Carrea: Treating those sentenced after Prop 47 more favorably than those with final pre-Act judgments is unequal | People: Prospective application and transition concerns are rational state interests; refusing retroactivity does not violate equal protection | Court: No equal protection violation; distinguishing by effective date is rational and constitutionally permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (discussing reduction of wobblers to misdemeanors and "misdemeanor for all purposes" prospectively)
- People v. Flores, 92 Cal.App.3d 461 (holding statutory reclassification prevented enhancement of new sentences imposed after reclassification)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (establishing retroactivity presumption for statutes mitigating punishment where judgment is nonfinal)
- People v. Hajek & Vo, 58 Cal.4th 1144 (describing the Estrada rule and limits)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (upholding prospective application of ameliorative statute and rejecting equal protection challenge to nonretroactivity)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (summarizing Prop 47's enactment and scope)
- People v. Aranda, 63 Cal.2d 518 (noting refusal to apply statute retroactively does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment)