People v. Johnson
244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 361
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Appellant was convicted by jury in 2009 of second-degree murder with a true firearm-use enhancement (§§ 187, 189, 12022.53(b)); sentence: 15 years to life plus a consecutive 10 years for the firearm enhancement.
- Appellant’s direct appeal was resolved against him and the California Supreme Court denied review; time to petition for U.S. Supreme Court certiorari expired September 13, 2011.
- Appellant later pursued multiple postconviction habeas petitions and collateral motions (including restitution challenges); none resulted in collateral relief that reopened his conviction.
- On April 9, 2018, after Senate Bill No. 620 amended Penal Code § 12022.53(h) (effective Jan 1, 2018) to permit courts to strike firearm enhancements in limited circumstances, appellant moved to have his firearm enhancement stayed/stricken; the trial court summarily denied the motion.
- The appellate court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under SB 620 because the amendment does not apply to final judgments and appellant did not obtain collateral relief that would make him eligible for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 12022.53(h) (as amended by SB 620) entitles appellant to resentencing despite his conviction being final | Johnson argued he should receive resentencing relief under amended § 12022.53(h) | State argued SB 620 does not apply to judgments that were final and where defendant did not obtain collateral relief | Held for State: § 12022.53(h) does not apply to appellant because his judgment was final and he did not obtain collateral relief making him eligible for resentencing |
| Whether appellant was entitled to an evidentiary de novo resentencing hearing and related procedural rights | Johnson claimed entitlement to presence, counsel, evidence presentation, confrontation, and a de novo sentencing hearing | State argued those procedural rights attach only to original sentencing or to cases where the court issues an order to show cause/resentencing is authorized | Held for State: No entitlement to those rights absent an order to show cause; summary denial appropriate |
| Whether the trial court’s summary denial was appealable | Johnson sought to appeal the denial of his SB 620 motion | State argued the order was not appealable because it was not an order made after judgment affecting substantial rights and the court lacked jurisdiction | Held for State: The denial is not appealable; the appeal is irregular and dismissed |
| Whether collateral petitions (habeas/motions) extended finality date for retroactivity of SB 620 | Johnson argued his later filings tolled or otherwise changed finality for retroactivity purposes | State argued finality is measured by the expiration of time to file certiorari, and collateral filings that do not obtain relief do not change that date | Held for State: Judgment became final when certiorari time expired (Sept. 13, 2011); later unsuccessful collateral filings do not make defendant eligible under § 12022.53(h) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romero, 8 Cal.4th 728 (1994) (summary denial procedure when defendant files postjudgment motion without entitlement to relief)
- In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813 (1993) (importance of finality in criminal judgments)
- People v. Vieira, 35 Cal.4th 264 (2005) (judgment is final for retroactivity when time to seek certiorari expires)
- People v. Arredondo, 21 Cal.App.5th 493 (2018) (SB 620 does not apply to judgments that remain final absent collateral relief)