People v. Cortez, 3 Cal. App. 5th 308

In 2012 Cortez pleaded guilty to one felony (possession of methamphetamine) and two misdemeanors (possession of paraphernalia; under the influence). He admitted a strike and a prison prior.
He was placed on probation with 270 days county jail; after a probation violation in 2014 he received 16 months prison on the felony and concurrent six‑month terms on each misdemeanor.
In 2015 Cortez petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.18 (Proposition 47) to recall and resentenced the qualifying felony as a misdemeanor. The trial court granted relief under subdivision (a).
The court resentenced to 364 days on the reduced count 1, 129 days consecutive on count 2, and 129 days concurrent on count 3, for an aggregate of 493 days; the court found 494 days custody credit and imposed one year of parole.
Cortez appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the original misdemeanor terms and that resentencing under § 1170.18 is limited to the portion of the aggregate sentence attributable to the qualifying felony.
The Court of Appeal held the trial court had power under § 1170.18 to revisit other sentencing choices when a felony is recalled to misdemeanor, but resentencing may not increase the overall aggregate term beyond the original sentence; the court reduced the new sentence by 5 days to conform to the original aggregate (488 days) and affirmed as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to alter previously imposed misdemeanor terms after a § 1170.18 recall	The People: trial court can resentence under § 1170.18 and follow normal sentencing procedures	Cortez: once execution of misdemeanor sentences began, court lost jurisdiction to change them	Held: § 1170.18 revests the court with jurisdiction to recall sentence and resentencing may reach other counts (court regained control of the res of the action)
Scope of resentencing — may court modify other counts and increase aggregate?	The People: court may recalculate the aggregate sentence and revise other counts to reflect what would have occurred had Prop 47 been in effect	Cortez: resentencing is limited to altering only the portion attributable to the qualifying felony	Held: Court may reconsider all sentencing choices to compute a new aggregate term (consistent with sentencing discretion), but resentencing cannot impose a term longer than the original aggregate sentence, so the sentence here was reduced by 5 days

People v. Roach, 247 Cal.App.4th 178 (explaining that § 1170.18 resentencing vests trial court with jurisdiction to select a new principal term and reconsider sentencing choices)
People v. Sellner, 240 Cal.App.4th 699 (addressing increases to subordinate terms after a Proposition 47 redesignation)
People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (describing common‑law rule that a court loses jurisdiction once execution of sentence begins)
In re Black, 66 Cal.2d 881 (explaining custody/surrender to authorities ends trial court’s control over res and bars reconsideration)
People v. Vasquez, 247 Cal.App.4th 513 (treating § 1170.18 as a narrow exception to the common‑law rule and recognizing revesting of jurisdiction)