People v. Millan
228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 647
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Oscar Millan pleaded guilty to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code § 11379) and admitted four prior drug-related convictions and four prison priors; no jury trial occurred.
- After a magistrate and the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of his rental car, Millan entered his plea and received a 10-year split sentence (5 years local custody + 5 years mandatory supervision).
- The trial court imposed an upper term (4 years) on the substantive offense and consecutive 3-year enhancements on two of the prior-drug convictions under former Health & Safety Code § 11370.2(c); two other § 11370.2(c) enhancements and the prison priors were struck.
- On appeal Millan primarily contested denial of his suppression motion and also challenged certain fees and the amount of restitution fines.
- After initial disposition affirming suppression ruling and most sentencing aspects, Millan sought rehearing to challenge the § 11370.2(c) enhancements based on a statutory amendment effective Jan. 1, 2018; the People agreed the amendment eliminates qualifying priors used to impose enhancements.
- Upon rehearing the court concluded the 2018 amendment reduced punishment, Estrada applies retroactively, and Millan’s sentence must be reversed and remanded to strike the § 11370.2(c) enhancements and resentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Millan's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 11370.2(c) prior-drug enhancements remain valid after SB 180 (effective Jan. 1, 2018) | The amendment removed his prior offenses from the qualifying list; Estrada requires retroactive application, so enhancements must be stricken | Agreed the amendment applies retroactively under Estrada and the enhancements no longer authorize added punishment | Court granted rehearing, held Estrada applies, reversed sentence, remanded to strike § 11370.2(c) enhancements and resentenced |
| Whether suppression ruling was erroneous (warrantless car search) | Suppression should have been granted because there was no probable cause and no valid exception to the warrant requirement | Court initially found substantial evidence of implied consent and affirmed denial of suppression; parties did not pursue this on rehearing | Initial opinion affirmed denial of suppression; that ruling was left undisturbed on rehearing |
| Whether certain penalty assessments (drug program and lab analysis) were improperly imposed | Millan argued they were erroneous | People argued assessments were proper | Court initially concluded assessments were properly imposed and affirmed those aspects |
| Whether restitution and parole-revocation restitution fines should be reduced to statutory minimums | Millan argued the trial court intended minimum fines ($300 each) so should be reduced from $3,000 to $300 | People opposed reduction; court viewed fines as lawful | Court found no basis to reduce the fines and affirmed the amounts in all other respects |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (amendments that lessen punishment apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (1996) (Estrada rule applies to penalty-enhancement statutes)
- People v. Figueroa, 20 Cal.App.4th 65 (1993) (application of Estrada to drug-trafficking enhancement)
- People v. Smith, 234 Cal.App.4th 1460 (2015) (when judgment becomes final for Estrada purposes)
- People v. Zabala, 19 Cal.App.5th 335 (2018) (vacating § 11370.2(c) enhancement in light of SB 180)