People v. Harris
22 Cal. App. 5th 657
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Colleen Ann Harris was convicted of first-degree murder and a special-circumstance firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53(d)); sentenced to 50 years to life. Appeal affirmed and remittitur issued Nov. 29, 2016; case final in early 2017.
- In Oct. 2017 the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 620 amending Penal Code § 12022.53(h) (effective Jan. 1, 2018) to permit trial courts discretion to strike firearm enhancements at sentencing, including on resentencing.
- In People v. Woods (2018) the court held the § 12022.53 amendment applies retroactively to nonfinal cases under In re Estrada.
- Harris moved to recall the remittitur in her final case to obtain briefing or remand for potential exercise of the new discretionary authority to strike the enhancement.
- The court considered the limited grounds for recalling a remittitur (fraud, mistake, clerical error, or narrow "excess of jurisdiction" habeas-related exception from People v. Mutch) and found Harris made no showing of fraud, mistake, or clerical error.
- The court denied the motion, concluding Mutch’s narrow exception does not apply and that recall of the remittitur is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for postfinal relief based solely on a later-enacted ameliorative statute; Harris may seek habeas relief in superior court if she wishes.
Issues
| Issue | Harris's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a remittitur may be recalled so a final defendant can seek relief under SB 620/§12022.53(h) | Remittitur should be recalled to permit briefing/remand so trial court can consider striking enhancement under new law | Remittitur recall is extraordinary and requires fraud, mistake, clerical error, or narrow habeas/Mutch grounds; none exist here | Denied; recall is not appropriate for final cases seeking relief under SB 620 |
| Whether the Mutch ("excess of jurisdiction") exception authorizes recalling a remittitur here | Mutch exception permits recall where new law entitles defendant to relief | Mutch is narrow and applies only where applied law shows conviction did not criminalize defendant’s undisputed conduct | Mutch does not apply; facts do not show conviction was for noncriminal conduct |
| Retroactivity of SB 620 to final vs. nonfinal cases | (Implied) Harris seeks retroactive application to her final case | Woods held SB 620 retroactive only to nonfinal cases under Estrada; Legislature did not provide reopening procedure for final cases | SB 620 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases (per Woods); does not automatically reopen final cases; recall not proper vehicle |
| Proper procedural vehicle for postfinal relief based on changed law | Recall remittitur in appellate court | File habeas corpus petition in superior court; legislature could have created statutory reopening but did not | Habeas in superior court is the appropriate avenue if Harris seeks relief; court expresses no views on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Woods, 19 Cal.App.5th 1080 (retroactivity of § 12022.53 amendment to nonfinal cases)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (when legislature mitigates punishment, new law applies before final judgment absent contrary intent)
- People v. Mutch, 4 Cal.3d 389 (narrow "excess of jurisdiction" exception allowing remittitur recall where conviction was for conduct not criminal under applicable law)
- People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119 (statutory interpretation declaring legislative intent can be retroactive)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., 33 Cal.3d 158 (recall of remittitur for "good cause"—fraud, mistake, clerical error—is limited)
- In re Richardson, 196 Cal.App.4th 647 (recalling remittitur is an extraordinary remedy)
- In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813 (emphasizing narrowness of excess-of-jurisdiction exception)
Disposition: Motion to recall the remittitur denied.