2 Cal. App. 5th 978
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2012 McDowell pleaded no contest to six felony burglaries and admitted an out-on-bail enhancement and a prior strike; as part of a plea bargain he received an aggregate 10-year prison term.
- Three other counts were dismissed in the plea; one related 4-year term in a separate case ran consecutively.
- After Proposition 47 (2014), McDowell petitioned under Penal Code §1170.18 to recall and resentence; two burglary counts were stipulated to be reduced to misdemeanors (§459.5).
- The separate 4-year principal term had already been reduced to a misdemeanor, requiring selection of a new principal term and recomputation of the aggregate sentence.
- Defense requested a combined 9-year term based on recalculation of terms; the prosecution sought to preserve the original 10-year aggregate sentence.
- The trial court resentenced McDowell to the same overall 10-year term, citing the plea bargain and McDowell’s serious criminal history; McDowell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 47 requires an automatic reduction in the aggregate sentence when some felony counts are resentenced as misdemeanors under §1170.18 | Plaintiff (People) argued the court may resentence under the usual sentencing rules and may impose a new sentence equal to the original term | McDowell argued changes in the law (Doe v. Harris) apply retroactively to plea bargains, requiring a reduced aggregate sentence when counts are reclassified | Court held §1170.18 permits a resentencing that is equal to or less than the original sentence; not automatically reduced to below the prior aggregate term |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the high term on the new principal count | People defended the sentence based on plea terms and defendant’s criminal history | McDowell contended reliance on the plea bargain term and imposition of the high term was an abuse of discretion | Court held no abuse: court permissibly relied on defendant’s serious and extensive criminal record as aggravating and otherwise complied with §1170.18 |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (change in law may apply retroactively to plea consequences in general)
- People v. Sellner, 240 Cal.App.4th 699 (upon resentencing court may select a new principal term and may impose a combined term equal to the original)
- People v. Garner, 244 Cal.App.4th 1113 (recalling sentence under reform statutes treated like §1170(d) resentencing; court may reconsider all charges)
- People v. Roach, 247 Cal.App.4th 178 (Proposition 47 authorizes resentencing under usual sentencing procedures and permits a new sentence equal to the original)