People v. Jefferson CA4/2, E073024

Background

In 2013 Jefferson pleaded guilty to corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code §273.5) and admitted a one-year prison-prior enhancement under former Penal Code §667.5(b) for a prior drug-transport conviction; the court imposed a four-year sentence but suspended its execution and granted probation.
Jefferson admitted probation violation in Sept. 2014; the four-year sentence remained imposed but its execution was suspended contingent on probation.
Jefferson later violated probation again after a 2018 conviction in a separate case; the trial court revoked probation and ordered execution of the previously suspended four-year term.
Jefferson appealed the revocation order; while that appeal was pending, Senate Bill No. 136 (effective Jan. 1, 2020) amended §667.5(b) to apply only to prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses.
The Court of Appeal held Jefferson is entitled to the benefit of SB 136, struck the one-year prison-prior enhancement, and remanded to give the People the option to rescind or renegotiate the plea/agreement (per People v. Hernandez).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jefferson is entitled to retroactive benefit of SB 136 because his judgment was not final when the amendment took effect	Judgment became final when sentence was imposed (2014); Jefferson did not timely appeal, so he is not entitled to SB 136 relief	Judgment was not final while probationary proceedings remained open; SB 136 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments	Court held the judgment was not final for retroactivity purposes and Jefferson may seek SB 136 relief because the appeal from probation revocation was pending when SB 136 took effect
Whether a sentence that is imposed but whose execution is suspended is a final judgment for retroactivity purposes	Imposition of sentence creates a final judgment despite suspended execution; defendant is estopped from later challenging it	Suspension of execution leaves a "provisional or conditional" judgment; finality depends on probation outcome, so statute ameliorations applying before probation finality can be applied	Court adopted the rule that suspending execution of an imposed sentence leaves the judgment nonfinal for ameliorative-retroactivity analysis (following Toomey/Chavez/McKenzie/Contreraz)
Proper remedy when a plea/agreement included the now-invalid enhancement: simply strike the enhancement or allow the People to withdraw their bargain	Implicitly argued the enhancement could be stricken and the remainder of the bargain left intact	Urged striking the enhancement but preserving the plea terms	Court struck the one-year enhancement but remanded so the People may either agree to modify the bargain to reflect the lower sentence or withdraw assent to the violation-of-probation agreement; court may also withdraw its prior approval

Key Cases Cited

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (statutory reductions in punishment apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
People v. McKenzie, 9 Cal.5th 40 (retroactivity when probation follows suspended imposition; courts may provide relief on direct review)
People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (distinction between suspension of imposition vs suspension of execution; finality consequences)
People v. Chavez, 4 Cal.5th 771 (discussion that judgments with suspended execution are provisional for retroactivity)
People v. Contreraz, 53 Cal.App.5th 965 (reconsideration in light of McKenzie; suspended-execution sentences treated as nonfinal for ameliorative statutes)
People v. Hernandez, 55 Cal.App.5th 942 (when enhancement stricken under SB 136, prosecutor and trial court must be afforded option to rescind plea agreement)
Stephens v. Toomey, 51 Cal.2d 864 (classic discussion that judgment is not final while probationary remedies remain available)