People v. Fuentes
1 Cal. 5th 218
Cal.2016Background
- In 2013 Fuentes was charged with vehicle theft and receiving stolen property; the complaint alleged a §186.22(b)(1) gang enhancement, which adds up to four years.
- At a plea hearing the trial court agreed to dismiss the gang enhancement pursuant to Penal Code §1385(a); the prosecutor objected, arguing the court was limited by §186.22(g) to striking only the enhancement’s additional punishment.
- The trial court orally dismissed the enhancement and placed Fuentes on probation; the District Attorney appealed, arguing §186.22(g)’s “notwithstanding any other law” language displaced §1385(a) authority.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal under §1385(a) but remanded because the court minutes lacked the required written reasons (a requirement later relaxed by amendment to §1385(a)).
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether §186.22(g) supplants the general dismissal power in §1385(a) and held that trial courts retain §1385(a) discretion to strike a §186.22(b)(1) enhancement entirely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §186.22(g) eliminates a trial court’s §1385(a) authority to dismiss a §186.22(b)(1) gang enhancement | §186.22(g)’s “notwithstanding any other law” shows legislative intent to limit courts to striking only the enhancement’s additional punishment under §186.22(g) | §186.22(g) does not explicitly reference §1385; absent clear legislative direction courts retain §1385(a) power to dismiss the enhancement entirely | Court held §1385(a) discretion remains; §186.22(g) does not clearly abrogate §1385(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (requires clear legislative intent to abrogate §1385 power)
- People v. Thomas, 4 Cal.4th 206 (1992) (statutory silence does not alone preclude §1385 where intent to divest is unclear)
- People v. Williams, 30 Cal.3d 470 (1981) (§1385 permits dismissals unless Legislature shows unmistakable contrary intent)
- People v. Fritz, 40 Cal.3d 227 (1985) (court may strike enhancements under §1385 absent clear legislative removal of that power)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (1996) (overview of STEP Act and gang enhancement scheme)
- In re Varnell, 30 Cal.4th 1132 (2003) (explains that §1385 dismissal power covers charges and allegations)
- People v. Campos, 196 Cal.App.4th 438 (2011) (contrary Court of Appeal decision disapproved insofar as inconsistent with this opinion)