People v. Diaz
238 Cal. App. 4th 1323
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Robert M. Diaz was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and admitted one prior strike and two prior prison-term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b). He was sentenced to six years.
- One of the prior prison terms used to impose the § 667.5(b) one‑year enhancement stemmed from a 2009 San Bernardino County conviction for petty theft with a prior (former § 666), then a felony.
- Voters later passed Proposition 47, which reclassified many nonserious/nonviolent felonies (including most former § 666 convictions) as misdemeanors and created § 1170.18 procedures to petition the sentencing court to redesignate completed felony convictions as misdemeanors.
- Diaz argued on appeal that his 2009 conviction would be a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 and therefore could not support the § 667.5(b) enhancement; he had not filed an application under § 1170.18(f) in the San Bernardino court.
- The Court of Appeal held that Diaz’s claim was premature: he must first seek redesignation in the superior court of conviction under § 1170.18(f) before an appellate court may treat the prior as a misdemeanor for all purposes. The court also rejected other arguments (Estrada retroactivity, equal protection) and affirmed the judgment; it found no abuse of discretion on the Pitchess ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court may strike § 667.5(b) enhancement by treating a prior felony as a misdemeanor under Prop 47 without prior § 1170.18(f) application | Prop 47’s reclassification applies only after the superior court of conviction grants redesignation; appellate court lacks authority to do so in first instance | Prior conviction would be a misdemeanor under Prop 47, so it cannot support § 667.5(b); appellate relief should be available here | Court: Defendant must first apply in court of conviction under § 1170.18(f); appeal relief is premature; enhancement stands |
| Whether Estrada retroactivity requires automatic reclassification of completed convictions on appeal | N/A (People argue procedural route required) | Estrada requires retroactive application of ameliorative change to nonfinal judgments, so reclassification should apply here | Estrada does not apply: the 2009 judgment was final before Prop 47, and Prop 47’s scheme requires filing in the court of conviction; Estrada does not compel relief here |
| Whether denying relief violates equal protection | N/A | Treating defendants who obtain redesignation differently from those who have not violates equal protection | Court: No equal protection violation because defendant is not similarly situated to persons whose priors have been redesignated; procedural remedy exists to seek redesignation |
| Whether trial court abused discretion on Pitchess motion (requests for officer personnel records) | N/A | Trial court erred in handling Pitchess motion | Court: No abuse of discretion; in camera review proper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (2010) (principles for interpreting initiatives and statutes)
- People v. Shabazz, 237 Cal.App.4th 303 (2015) (§ 1170.18 requires filing in superior court of conviction for redesignation)
- People v. Flores, 92 Cal.App.3d 461 (1979) (legislative scheme can preclude using prior conviction for sentence enhancement when statute disallows it)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative penal statutes may apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments in limited circumstances)
- People v. Hajek & Vo, 58 Cal.4th 1144 (2014) (clarifies narrow, context‑specific application of Estrada rule)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (1996) (statutory retroactivity analysis requires discerning legislative intent)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (2001) (standard of appellate review for in camera Pitchess hearings)