People v. Evans
6 Cal. App. 5th 894
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2015 John William Evans was convicted of multiple offenses and admitted three prior prison terms, including a 2007 felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance that supported a one‑year enhancement under Penal Code § 667.5(b).
- Evans filed a Proposition 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18) petition to reclassify the 2007 felony as a misdemeanor; the petition had not been resolved at the time of his June 26, 2015 sentencing hearing.
- The trial court imposed a nine‑year sentence that included the one‑year § 667.5(b) prison‑prior enhancement based on the 2007 conviction.
- Evans appealed; after appeal was filed but before the judgment became final, the trial court granted his Proposition 47 petition and redesignated the 2007 conviction a misdemeanor.
- The appellate court considered whether section 1170.18(k) (Proposition 47’s “misdemeanor for all purposes” clause) provides relief from § 667.5(b) enhancements and whether that relief applies when the redesignation occurs before the sentence is final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170.18(k) prevents imposing a § 667.5(b) prison‑prior enhancement based on a conviction later redesignated a misdemeanor | § 1170.18(k) should not nullify enhancements imposed when the underlying conviction was a felony at sentencing; enhancements punish recidivism regardless of later reclassification | § 1170.18(k) makes a reclassified felony a misdemeanor "for all purposes," so it precludes enhancements based on that conviction | § 1170.18(k) applies prospectively: once a prior conviction is redesignated a misdemeanor it no longer satisfies the felony element of § 667.5(b), so the enhancement cannot stand |
| Whether Proposition 47’s relief applies when redesignation occurs after imposition but before the judgment is final | Relief should not apply if the enhancement was imposed before redesignation; applying it would be impermissibly retroactive | If the sentence is not final, Estrada requires applying ameliorative changes; a redesignation before finality allows relief from enhancements | Under In re Estrada, ameliorative changes like Prop 47 apply to non‑final judgments; because Evans’s sentence was not final when his prior was redesignated, the § 667.5(b) enhancement must be struck |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative statutory changes apply to judgments not yet final unless a saving clause indicates otherwise)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (Cal. 2013) (once a prior wobbler is lawfully reduced to a misdemeanor under § 17(b), it cannot later serve as a felony enhancement)
- People v. Jones, 1 Cal.App.5th 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (Proposition 47 does not permit striking enhancements in convictions that were final before redesignation)
- People v. Abdallah, 246 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (§ 1170.18(k)’s "for all purposes" language supports treating redesignated convictions as misdemeanors for collateral‑consequence purposes)