People v. Medina
233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 758
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- In 2015 Job Luna Medina pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to commit marijuana possession for sale (Pen. Code § 182; Health & Saf. Code § 11359). The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted one year of probation.
- At the time of the underlying conduct (2013) and plea, possession for sale was a felony; Prop. 64 (Nov. 9, 2016) reclassified possession for sale as a misdemeanor in most cases.
- Medina moved to reduce his felony conspiracy conviction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 17(b)(3) and Health & Saf. Code § 11361.8(e); the trial court denied the motion after hearings in 2017.
- The conspiracy involved a substantial quantity (at least 35 one‑pound bags) and Medina had prior drug‑related arrests; the trial court considered these facts in denying relief.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion under § 17(b)(3) and that § 11361.8(e) does not authorize redesignation of a felony conspiracy conviction to a misdemeanor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to reduce a felony conspiracy conviction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 17(b)(3) | The People implicitly argued the court lawfully exercised discretion to deny reduction given offense severity and defendant's history | Medina argued Prop. 64 made the underlying target offense a misdemeanor, so his conspiracy became a wobbler and should be reduced under § 17(b)(3) | No abuse of discretion; court properly weighed offense facts (large quantity, prior arrests) and defendant did not show decision was arbitrary or irrational |
| Whether a felony conspiracy conviction is eligible for redesignation under Health & Saf. Code § 11361.8(e) (Prop. 64 remedy) | The People argued § 11361.8(e) does not apply to conspiracy because § 182 is not among the enumerated marijuana statutes and conspiracy is a distinct, more serious offense | Medina argued that because the target offense was reclassified by Prop. 64, his conviction should be redesignated to a misdemeanor under § 11361.8(e) | Held not eligible: § 11361.8(e) applies to specified marijuana statutes; conspiracy (§ 182) is a separate offense and remains a felony unless reduced by the sentencing court under § 17(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Athar, 36 Cal.4th 396 (discusses conspiracy punishment tied to target offense)
- People v. Feyrer, 48 Cal.4th 426 (a plea to a felony does not preclude later reduction under § 17(b))
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (standard of review for § 17(b) decisions and treatment of wobblers)
- People v. Superior Court (Alvarez), 14 Cal.4th 968 (trial court should consider offense circumstances and offender character when exercising § 17(b) discretion)
- People v. Statum, 28 Cal.4th 682 (a wobbler remains a felony unless reduced by the court or charged as a misdemeanor)
- People v. Martinez, 4 Cal.5th 647 (framework for assessing eligibility under post‑enactment redesignation statutes)
- People v. Morante, 20 Cal.4th 403 (conspiracy is a distinct offense from the substantive crime)
- People v. Segura, 239 Cal.App.4th 1282 (felony conspiracy not eligible for redesignation under a Proposition 47 analogue)