People v. Martinez
230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673
| Cal. | 2018Background
- In 2007 Martinez was convicted of felony transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Safety Code §11379) and felony possession (§11377); sentence became final in 2010.
- In 2013 the Legislature amended §11379 to define “transports” as “to transport for sale,” narrowing §11379 to require intent to sell; that amendment was not made retroactive.
- In 2014 voters enacted Proposition 47, which reclassified certain drug possession and theft felonies as misdemeanors and created Penal Code §1170.18 to permit resentencing for persons serving sentences who “would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under [Prop. 47] had [it] been in effect at the time of the offense.”
- Martinez petitioned under §1170.18 seeking resentencing for both convictions; the DA conceded §11377 possession was eligible, but argued §11379 transportation was not.
- The trial court granted resentencing for possession but denied it for transportation; the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed on the ground that Prop. 47 did not reclassify transportation under former §11379.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §11379 transportation conviction is eligible for resentencing under Prop. 47 (§1170.18) | DA: §1170.18 eligibility requires the offense to have been reclassified by Prop. 47; §11379 is not listed | Martinez: Voters knew 2013 amendment narrowed §11379, so his conduct would have been prosecuted only as possession (§11377) and thus eligible | Court: Eligibility turns on whether the conduct “would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under [Prop.47] had it been in effect.” But Prop. 47 did not amend §11379; transportation remained a felony, so Martinez is ineligible |
| Whether the absence of §11379 from §1170.18’s enumerated statutes bars resentencing | DA: §1170.18 lists specific statutes; omission of §11379 shows exclusion | Martinez: The §1170.18 list is not exclusive because some listed statutes were created by Prop. 47; thus omission is not dispositive | Court: Omitting §11379 is not dispositive, but on the merits Prop. 47 did not reclassify transportation, so denial is affirmed |
| Whether the 2013 legislative amendment to §11379 can be applied to Martinez’s final conviction | DA: 2013 amendment is not retroactive and cannot reopen final convictions | Martinez: The 2013 amendment effectively moved non-sale transportation into §11377, so his conviction should now be considered a possession offense | Court: Ameliorative or clarifying changes do not apply retroactively absent clear intent; the 2013 amendment does not retroactively alter Martinez’s final conviction |
| Whether §11379 implicitly transferred non-sale transportation to §11377 | Martinez: Narrowing §11379 made §11377 the exclusive statute for non-sale transport conduct | Court: Possession is not an element of transportation; narrowing §11379 did not automatically convert all transportation convictions into possession offenses; therefore not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Page, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (interpreting §1170.18 eligibility and holding listed statutes not exclusive)
- People v. Rogers, 5 Cal.3d 129 (transportation offense requires only movement of contraband and can be distinct from possession)
- People v. Eastman, 13 Cal.App.4th 668 (discussing transportation conviction without intent to sell and harms of transportation)
- People v. Romanowski, 2 Cal.5th 903 (noting some listed §1170.18 statutes were created by Prop. 47)
- People v. Ormiston, 105 Cal.App.4th 676 (movement as the crux of transportation offense)
- People v. Emmal, 68 Cal.App.4th 1313 (same)
- Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1188 (ameliorative statutes do not apply retroactively absent clear intent)