People v. Jones
1 Cal. App. 5th 221
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Jones pled guilty to second-degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code §459) for taking about $35.46 worth of items from Walgreens, plus other counts; he admitted one prison prior and received concurrent terms plus a one-year enhancement under §667.5(b).
- The trial court later granted a Proposition 47 (§1170.18) petition in a prior case redesignating a separate prior felony (§666) as a misdemeanor.
- Jones filed a §1170.18 petition in the instant case to redesignate his burglary to misdemeanor shoplifting (§459.5) and also moved to strike the one-year prison-prior enhancement on the ground the redesignated prior could not support an enhancement under Prop. 47.
- At a consolidated hearing the court considered only whether the prison-prior enhancement could be retroactively stricken and denied that relief; the court did not address Jones’s §1170.18 petition to redesignate the burglary, and no evidence was taken on that petition.
- The Court of Appeal held Prop. 47’s redesignation procedures allow retroactive redesignation of convictions but do not provide for retroactive striking of sentence enhancements imposed in final judgments; it reversed the denial of the redesignation petition and affirmed denial of the motion to strike the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1170.18 permits retroactive striking of a §667.5(b) prison-prior enhancement based on a conviction later redesignated a misdemeanor | Prop. 47 does not allow striking enhancements retroactively; enhancement stands | The redesignation makes the prior a misdemeanor “for all purposes,” so the prior can no longer support the §667.5(b) enhancement | Court: No. §1170.18 provides procedures to redesignate convictions but does not authorize retroactive striking of enhancements imposed in final judgments; enhancement denial affirmed |
| Whether refusing retroactive relief for enhancements violates equal protection | State treats similarly situated offenders rationally in transition; no equal protection violation | Denying retroactive striking creates unequal treatment between those resentenced and those already serving enhancements | Court: No equal protection violation; refusing retroactive relief is rational and permissible |
| Whether the trial court properly denied Jones’s §1170.18 petition to redesignate burglary as misdemeanor shoplifting without addressing it at hearing | Trial court’s minute order denying petition was valid | Jones sought a hearing under §1170.18(h); burglary facts fit §459.5 (value <$950) and entitle him to a hearing and possible redesignation | Court: Trial court erred by failing to address petition and deny it without a hearing; reversal as to petition and remand for proceedings |
| Whether summary denial without hearing is permissible when defendant requests a §1170.18 hearing | Court may summarily decide when no hearing requested | When a hearing is requested, court must hold it and allow the defendant to be heard | Court: Where a hearing is requested, court must hold one; defendant was denied a statutory hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., 29 Cal.4th 911 (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (same interpretive principles apply to voter initiatives)
- People v. Woodhead, 43 Cal.3d 1002 (rules for ascertaining legislative intent)
- In re Preston, 176 Cal.App.4th 1109 (enhancement under §667.5(b) requires a prior felony conviction)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (penal statutes are not retroactive absent express intent)
- People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal.4th 821 (prosecutorial charging disparities do not by themselves violate equal protection)
- People v. Aranda, 63 Cal.2d 518 (refusing retroactive application of a statute does not violate Fourteenth Amendment)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (prospective application of sentencing changes can be rationally related to transition interests)