25 Cal. App. 5th 1207
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- In 2014 McKenzie pled guilty in three consolidated cases to methamphetamine-related offenses and admitted four prior felony drug convictions (Health & Safety Code §11370.2(c)) and three prior prison terms (Pen. Code §667.5(b)); court granted probation with imposition of sentence suspended.
- In 2016 probation was revoked after McKenzie admitted violations; court imposed an aggregate split term (10 years in county jail + 12 years mandatory supervision) and added four three‑year §11370.2(c) enhancements and three one‑year §667.5(b) enhancements (imposed in case 1; duplicated/stayed or stricken in case 3 inconsistently).
- McKenzie appealed, claiming (1) he was entitled to three additional days of presentence custody conduct credit and (2) the court erred in the handling of the prior‑conviction and prior‑prison‑term enhancements.
- After this court’s opinion, the California Supreme Court granted review and remanded for reconsideration in light of Senate Bill No. 180 (effective Jan. 1, 2018), which narrowed §11370.2 enhancements to prior convictions under §11380 (sales involving a minor).
- The court held (1) presentence credits must be aggregated to 118 days actual + 118 days conduct = 236 days total; (2) §11370.2(c) enhancements must be stricken because McKenzie’s priors were not §11380 convictions and SB 180 applies retroactively where the judgment was not yet final; (3) duplicate §667.5(b) prior prison‑term enhancements were improperly imposed twice and must be stricken from the second count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presentence custody conduct credits calculation | People: credits already correct / one extra day granted | McKenzie: noncontinuous custody aggregates and he is owed 3 more conduct days | Aggregation rule applies; defendant entitled to 118 days conduct credit (236 total); adjust minute order |
| Retroactive application of SB 180 to §11370.2(c) enhancements | People: order granting probation is a final judgment for appeal purposes so SB 180 does not apply retroactively | McKenzie: imposition of sentence was suspended; judgment not final for retroactivity so Estrada applies | SB 180 applies retroactively here; all §11370.2(c) enhancements stricken |
| Whether §667.5(b) prior‑prison enhancements were properly imposed twice | People: enhancements imposed as sentenced | McKenzie: status enhancements apply once to aggregate term and cannot be duplicated | §667.5(b) enhancements are status enhancements and must be imposed only once; duplicate enhancements stricken |
| Effect of Rodas/Eagle on retroactivity | People: Rodas suggests probation order makes conviction final for retroactivity | McKenzie: Rodas distinguishable; finality must consider full appellate/certiorari period | Court follows Estrada/Vieira reasoning: conviction not final for retroactivity here; Rodas not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Sup. Ct. 1965) (amendments mitigating punishment generally apply retroactively when judgment not final)
- People v. DeHoyos, 4 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (discusses retroactivity principles and Estrada rule)
- People v. Vieira, 35 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2005) (finality for retroactivity includes time to seek certiorari)
- People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 1997) (distinguishes suspension of imposition from suspension of execution for finality)
- People v. Culp, 100 Cal.App.4th 1278 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (presentence custody conduct credits are cumulative for noncontinuous custody)
- People v. Eagle, 246 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (applied Estrada to defendant granted probation with suspended imposition)
- People v. Rodas, 10 Cal.App.5th 1316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (distinguished Eagle; held limited circumstances may render conviction final for retroactivity analysis)