People v. Distin CA2/3
B304654
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- In Sept. 2018 Distin pled no contest to carjacking (§ 215(a)) and second-degree robbery (§ 211), admitted a five-year prior under the Three Strikes law (§ 667(a)(1)) and four one-year prison-term priors (§ 667.5(b)).
- The court imposed an 18-year aggregate sentence but stayed execution and placed Distin on 3 years’ probation (suspended sentence included the 5-year enhancement and four 1-year priors).
- Distin later violated probation; after revocation the court struck the four 1-year priors but concluded it lacked discretion to strike the five-year prior and executed sentence, imposing 14 years.
- Senate Bill No. 1393 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) gave trial courts discretion to strike five-year priors; the question was whether Distin’s judgment was "final" when that law took effect.
- The Court of Appeal, applying People v. Esquivel and related authority, held Distin’s judgment was not final for retroactivity purposes and remanded to allow Distin to seek relief under SB 1393; the court also identified sentencing and abstract-of-judgment errors to be corrected on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Distin's conviction was "final" on Jan. 1, 2019 for purposes of applying an ameliorative statute (SB 1393) | Case became final 60 days after Sept. 2018 probation order because Distin did not timely appeal | Judgment was not final because execution of sentence was suspended and the prosecution remained pending; thus SB 1393 applies | Not final; Esquivel controls — defendant may seek relief under SB 1393 when sentence executed after probation revocation |
| Whether the trial court had discretion to strike the five-year prior when revoking probation | No discretion because sentence was final when SB 1393 took effect | Court had discretion under SB 1393 because judgment was not final | Trial court had discretion; remand required to permit defendant to seek striking of the prior |
| Sentencing and clerical errors on remand | N/A (appellate correction requested) | N/A | If court does not strike prior, must impose correct 5-year high term for robbery, correct abstract to show stayed count and one serious-felony enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (Cal. 2021) (judgment not final for Estrada retroactivity where execution of sentence was suspended)
- People v. McKenzie, 9 Cal.5th 40 (Cal. 2020) (when sentence execution is suspended, the judgment is not final for retroactivity analysis)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (procedure on remand when court may exercise new discretionary relief under an ameliorative statute)
- People v. Chavez, 4 Cal.5th 771 (Cal. 2018) (a suspended execution sentence is provisional or conditional for retroactivity purposes)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative statutory changes apply to judgments not final on the statute’s operative date)