27 Cal.App.5th 784
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Eric Frahs, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, shoplifted a beer and energy drink and engaged in a physical confrontation with the store owner; convicted by jury of two second-degree robberies and a misdemeanor.
- After the jury verdict, a bench trial found true a 2015 prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (broken beer bottle); court imposed a nine-year sentence doubled under the Three Strikes law.
- While Frahs’s appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Penal Code §1001.36, creating a mental-health pretrial diversion program for qualifying defendants.
- Frahs argued §1001.36 should apply retroactively to permit diversion; he also challenged that his prior assault conviction qualified as a strike because a broken beer bottle is not an inherently deadly weapon.
- The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed and remanded for a diversion-eligibility hearing under §1001.36, but affirmed the prior strike finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code §1001.36 (mental-health diversion) applies retroactively to cases not yet final | The People argued the statute’s pretrial diversion scheme was not intended to apply retroactively because diversion is available only until adjudication | Frahs argued the statute confers an ameliorative benefit and under Estrada/Lara should apply to nonfinal judgments | Court held §1001.36 is retroactive to nonfinal cases; conditional reversal and remand for a diversion-eligibility hearing as if diversion had been sought pre-adjudication |
| Whether Frahs’s 2015 assault conviction (broken beer bottle) qualifies as a Three Strikes serious felony | The People argued the prior §245(a)(1) plea to assault with a deadly weapon supports strike treatment; plea admitted the element | Frahs argued a broken beer bottle is not an “inherently” deadly weapon and thus the prior conviction should not be a strike | Court held the long-standing definition of deadly weapon (object used in a manner capable of producing death or great bodily injury) controls; substantial evidence supports the strike finding and it stands |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative criminal statutes presumed retroactive absent savings clause)
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (interpreting retroactivity for ameliorative juvenile procedural change and endorsing Vela-style remand)
- People v. Delgado, 43 Cal.4th 1059 (Cal. 2008) (standards for proving prior strike allegations and related issues)
- People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal.4th 1023 (Cal. 1997) (definition of "deadly weapon" as any object used in a manner capable of producing death or great bodily injury)
- People v. Puerto, 248 Cal.App.4th 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (prior §245(a)(1) assault convictions after the 2011 amendment qualify as strikes)
- People v. Vela, 21 Cal.App.5th 1099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (remand procedure for retroactive application of ameliorative reforms)
- People v. Ward, 66 Cal.2d 571 (Cal. 1967) (guilty plea constitutes admission of every element of the crime)