People v. Hall
247 Cal. App. 4th 1255
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Norman Hall pleaded no contest to grand theft from a person (§ 487(c)) as part of a plea bargain; he admitted two prior prison-term enhancements and was sentenced to five years.
- The underlying facts: Hall followed a woman, pushed her, displayed/pressed a knife to her abdomen, threatened to stab her, and took her purse; he was caught running with the purse.
- After Proposition 47 reduced many theft offenses to misdemeanors and created a resentencing procedure (§ 1170.18), Hall petitioned to have his felony conviction recalled and reduced to a misdemeanor.
- The People opposed, arguing resentencing would violate the plea bargain and would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety under § 1170.18(b)–(c).
- The trial court considered Hall’s lengthy and escalating criminal history (including two prior "strike" convictions and prior threats of deadly force), his lack of demonstrable rehabilitation despite no prison disciplinary record, and CDCR records; it denied the petition as posing an unreasonable risk.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of the petitioner committing a new violent "super strike" felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hall was eligible for resentencing under Prop. 47 (§ 1170.18) because the value of the stolen property may exceed $950 | People: Hall failed to prove the stolen property’s value was ≤ $950, so he may be ineligible | Hall: Eligibility established (or issue not resolved below); plea does not fix value and he sought relief | Court: Did not decide eligibility on appeal (People failed to press below); declined to affirm on that ground |
| Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion in denying resentencing because Hall would pose an "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" if resentenced | People: Trial court properly found Hall posed an unreasonable risk based on his criminal history and violent conduct | Hall: Court substituted a finding of being "generally dangerous" for the statutory requirement of risk of committing a specified "super strike" offense | Court: No abuse of discretion; court applied correct standard and reasonably inferred elevated risk of committing a violent "super strike" |
| Whether the court improperly relied on arrest records/CDCR materials | People: Relevant rehabilitation and records may be considered | Hall: Arrest records should not be considered | Court: Consideration of CDCR materials not arbitrary; record does not show court relied improperly on arrest records |
| Whether resentencing would entitle the People to withdraw from the plea bargain | People (alternative): If Hall is entitled to relief, parties should be returned to pre-plea positions | Hall: Seeks resentencing under Prop. 47 | Court: Did not reach this question because it upheld denial on public-safety grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (discusses § 1170.18 resentencing procedure and "unreasonable risk" standard)
- People v. Bush, 245 Cal.App.4th 992 (describes two-step § 1170.18 analysis: eligibility then public-safety determination)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (petitioner’s burden to prove eligibility and value for theft offenses)
- People v. Contreras, 237 Cal.App.4th 868 (value-of-property is factual finding for trial court on resentencing petitions)
- People v. Hoffman, 241 Cal.App.4th 1304 (§ 1170.18 public-safety analysis and discretion)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (standard for overturning discretionary sentencing decisions)
- People v. Rodrigues, 8 Cal.4th 1060 (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing matters)
- Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp, 181 Cal.App.3d 245 (statutory construction rule avoiding surplusage)