People v. Hatt, 20 Cal. App. 5th 321

In 2014 Proposition 47 added Penal Code § 1170.18, permitting redesignation of certain felony convictions as misdemeanors if statutory criteria are met and no disqualifying prior conviction exists.
George Hatt pleaded guilty to felony methamphetamine possession in 2003 and was sentenced to prison; in May 2016 he applied under § 1170.18(f) to have that conviction redesignated.
At the time Hatt filed, a murder charge was pending against him in Washington; the prosecutor opposed redesignation on that basis.
The trial court issued a tentative denial in August 2016 but continued the matter for briefing and to await resolution of the murder case; the continuances were granted over Hatt’s objection.
In June 2017 the Washington jury convicted Hatt of murder; the trial court then denied Hatt’s redesignation application and Hatt appealed.
The court of appeal affirmed, holding that a disqualifying conviction that occurs after filing but before the court rules bars relief under § 1170.18.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hatt)	Defendant's Argument (People)	Held
Whether the trial court’s August 2016 tentative denial was a final order	The August denial was a denial and should be reviewable	The August ruling was tentative; court invited briefing and continued the matter	Tentative ruling; not final and not appealable
Whether continuances to await outcome of pending disqualifying charge abused discretion	Continuances improperly delayed Hatt and were unnecessary under § 1170.18	Continuances were necessary and useful to determine if a disqualifying conviction would occur	No abuse of discretion; good cause existed to continue
Meaning of “prior conviction” in § 1170.18(i) — prior to what?	“Prior conviction” means prior to filing the redesignation application	Voter intent supports treating any conviction occurring before the court’s ruling as disqualifying	Held: “Prior conviction” includes any disqualifying conviction that exists before the trial court rules on the application
Whether a pending disqualifying case at filing prevents relief if it results in conviction before ruling	Hatt argued he was eligible because no disqualifying conviction existed at filing	People argued voters intended to prevent offenders convicted of severe crimes from obtaining redesignation regardless of timing	The court sided with People; a conviction occurring after filing but before ruling bars redesignation

People v. Montgomery, 247 Cal.App.4th 1385 (interpreting “prior conviction” as before filing in its facts)
People v. Zamarripa, 247 Cal.App.4th 1179 (similar treatment of “prior conviction” in context of § 1170.18)
People v. Casillas, 13 Cal.App.5th 745 (holds disqualifying conviction before court’s ruling bars relief)
People v. Walker, 5 Cal.App.5th 872 (adopts rule that conviction before ruling is disqualifying)
People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (standard for continuances and good cause)
People v. Von Villas, 11 Cal.App.4th 175 (describing nature of tentative rulings)
People v. Pearson (People v. Superior Court (Pearson)), 48 Cal.4th 564 (statutory/initiative interpretation principles)
People v. Tran, 61 Cal.4th 1160 (independent review for statutory construction)