People v. DeHoyos, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 687

Proposition 47 (approved Nov. 4, 2014) reclassified many theft- and drug-related felonies as misdemeanors for defendants without certain serious/violent or sex-offender priors, and provided retrospective relief mechanisms.
Section 1170.18 permits persons "serving a sentence" on Nov. 5, 2014, to petition for recall and resentencing; courts must grant relief unless resentencing "would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety."
The measure also allows persons who completed sentences to apply to have felonies redesignated as misdemeanors; different subsections address completed vs. serving sentences.
Veronica DeHoyos was convicted (April 2014) of felony possession of methamphetamine, placed on probation, and appealed; her judgment was not final on Nov. 5, 2014.
On appeal DeHoyos argued her conviction should be reduced automatically to a misdemeanor under the Estrada presumption for nonfinal judgments; the Court of Appeal rejected this and required use of section 1170.18 petition process.
The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether defendants serving sentences but with nonfinal judgments on Prop. 47’s effective date get automatic resentencing or must pursue section 1170.18 (including the public-safety risk assessment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants serving sentences whose judgments were nonfinal on Nov. 5, 2014, get automatic resentencing under Estrada or must use Prop. 47's §1170.18 petition process	§1170.18 is the exclusive remedial path; it applies to both final and nonfinal sentences and requires the court's risk assessment	Estrada presumes ameliorative laws apply to all nonfinal judgments, so nonfinal-sentence defendants are entitled to automatic resentencing without §1170.18's risk review	Held for Plaintiff: §1170.18 is the exclusive route; defendants with nonfinal judgments must petition under §1170.18 and are subject to the unreasonable-risk public-safety assessment

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption that ameliorative statutes apply to nonfinal judgments)
In re Kirk, 63 Cal.2d 761 (Cal. 1965) (applies Estrada presumption where statute took effect while appeal pending)
People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016) (held resentencing provision of Prop. 36 was exclusive retroactive mechanism; Estrada displaced when voters provided detailed recall scheme)
People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (Cal. 2017) (discusses scope of Prop. 47 and its effect on offense classifications)