77 Cal.App.5th 420
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In Oct. 2020 Flores pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor (Health & Safety Code §11377(a)); a related felony count (§11378) was dismissed. The plea included three years summary probation and 60 days custody.
- Flores filed a timely appeal; his judgment was not final when Assembly Bill 1950 (effective Jan. 1, 2021) shortened maximum probation to 1 year for misdemeanors (2 years for felonies), subject to limited exceptions not applicable here.
- The parties agree AB 1950 is ameliorative and retroactive under In re Estrada and thus applies to nonfinal judgments, but they dispute the proper remedy.
- The People urged remand under People v. Stamps to permit the prosecutor (or trial court) to withdraw/renegotiate the plea or restore dismissed charges; Flores sought modification on appeal reducing his probation to one year.
- The Court of Appeal concluded Stamps is distinguishable, held Flores is entitled to immediate modification of his probation term from three years to one year, directed the trial court to amend records, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of AB 1950 | AB 1950 is ameliorative but remedy unresolved | AB 1950 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases | AB 1950 is retroactive under Estrada and applies here |
| Appropriate remedy (remand under Stamps vs. modification on review) | Remand required so prosecutor/court can withdraw/rescind plea per Stamps | Court should modify probation on review to 1 year without remand | Stamps remedy is distinguishable; court ordered modification on review to 1 year |
| Effect on plea bargains / Collins concern (state’s lost benefit) | Allowing unilateral modification deprives People of bargained benefit; Collins remedies may be required | Legislature intended categorical reduction of probation terms; plea bargains not insulated from ameliorative changes (§1016.8) | Collins does not control here because AB 1950 reduced (not eliminated) a plea term; restoring state’s alleged loss by remand would frustrate legislative intent |
| Was the 3‑year term negotiated? | Three‑year probation was part of the plea; if negotiated, People still seek remand | Flores argued it was not negotiated (contradicted by record); seeks direct modification | Record shows the three‑year term was negotiated, but court nonetheless modified term to 1 year on review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative criminal statutes presumptively apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (defendant entitled to seek relief under ameliorative change that grants new sentencing discretion; remand may be required to reconcile plea limits)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) (when legislative change wholly eviscerates bargain, remedy may include revival of dismissed counts to restore state’s bargained benefit)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (Cal. 2016) (Proposition 47 bound parties to plea bargains; electorate can unilaterally change sentencing consequences and entitle defendants to relief without allowing prosecutorial rescission)