People v. Hattan CA6, H046904

In 2017 Hattan pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Safety §11378) and admitted a prior controlled-substance conviction under former H&S §11370.2(c).
Under a negotiated disposition he received 3 years’ probation with a 5‑year prison term (3 + 2 years) suspended; the court warned any probation violation would likely result in prison.
About 18 months later Hattan tested positive for methamphetamine, was arrested for use, admitted the probation violation, and submitted letters asking for reinstatement.
The probation department and the District Attorney recommended revocation; the trial court revoked probation and executed the previously suspended 5‑year term, finding Hattan unsuitable for continued probation treatment.
On appeal Hattan argued the court had predetermined the outcome and abused its sentencing discretion; he also sought retroactive application of later ameliorative legislation removing the prior‑conviction enhancement, repealing narcotics‑registration, and vacating certain fees.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation (no abuse of discretion) but ordered retroactive relief: struck the §11370.2(c) enhancement and two‑year term, deleted the narcotics‑registration requirement, vacated probation fees under Penal Code §1465.9, and applied credits to satisfy certain other fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by revoking probation based on a predetermined decision	People: Court properly exercised discretion; issue forfeited by no objection; court considered both sides and made findings	Hattan: Judge’s pre-plea warnings show predetermination and failure to exercise discretion	No abuse; forfeiture noted but on merits court found exercise of discretion and adequate findings
Whether amendment to H&S §11370.2 eliminating most prior‑conviction enhancements applies retroactively	People: (implicitly) relief available because judgment not final	Hattan: S.B.180 applies retroactively to eliminate the §11370.2(c) enhancement	Retroactive; enhancement and associated 2‑year term stricken
Whether repeal of narcotics‑offender registration (H&S §11590) applies to nonfinal judgments	People: registration no longer applies under the statute	Hattan: Registration should be removed	Retroactive; registration requirement deleted
Whether Penal Code §1465.9 vacates previously imposed probation report and supervision fees	People: statute should be applied only prospectively to fees imposed after effective date	Hattan: §1465.9 mandates vacatur of listed fees now and bars future collection	Court: §1465.9 is mandatory; vacated the specified probation fees and applied custody credits to satisfy certain other fees

People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (forfeiture rule and burden on appellant to show sentencing abuse)
People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (a sentencing decision predetermined is an abuse of discretion)
People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (a judgment with suspended execution is not final until appellate review of any executed sentence)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (presumption that ameliorative penal statutes apply retroactively)
People v. Lopez, 57 Cal.App.5th 409 (application of Estrada presumption to reduced punishments)
People v. Clark, 67 Cal.App.5th 248 (Pen. Code §1465.9 requires vacatur of specified fees)
People v. Petri, 45 Cal.App.5th 82 (custody credits can be applied against certain court‑imposed fees)
People v. Medina, 89 Cal.App.4th 318 (suspended execution signals that defendant is on verge of prison commitment)