21 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 1
Cal. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Pamela Monk was cited and convicted under former Veh. Code § 21456(b) for beginning to cross while a "DON'T WALK" signal was flashing; officer Kelly testified he observed a flashing "DON'T WALK" with the countdown at 7 seconds, but he could only see the signal facing him, not Monk.
- Monk testified she and others began crossing before the sign started flashing and disputed why only she was cited; the trial court found her not credible and imposed a $25 fine plus assessments.
- While Monk's appeal was pending, Assembly Bill 390 amended Veh. Code § 21456 to permit a pedestrian to start crossing during a flashing "DON'T WALK" if a countdown timer remains (and to restrict the prohibition to signals without countdown timers).
- The amendment decriminalized certain conduct at intersections with countdown timers and became effective January 1, 2018 (not enacted as urgency legislation).
- The Court of Appeal invited supplemental briefing on retroactivity; the People conceded reversal was required under the retroactivity rule articulated in In re Estrada and related authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Monk started crossing while her signal was flashing | Kelly's observation of the synchronized signal he faced sufficed by circumstantial evidence | Monk said she began crossing before flashing and challenged credibility and selective citation | Court did not reverse on sufficiency — factual finding for trial court remains intact |
| Whether the amendment to Veh. Code § 21456 (Assembly Bill 390) applies to convictions not final on appeal | People initially argued against retroactive application but later conceded reversal was required | Monk argued she should benefit from the ameliorative change under Estrada | Court applied Estrada and related precedent, holding the amendment applies to nonfinal cases and requires reversal/remand |
| Whether failure to raise retroactivity below forfeits the claim | People argued procedural default may apply | Monk relied on Estrada and Nasalga to avoid forfeiture | Court held forfeiture rule does not bar Estrada claims; de novo review of retroactivity issue |
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy after reversal based on retroactive law | People argued retrial may be proper to prove new statutory element (completion before countdown end) | Monk implied reversal ends prosecution | Court held retrial not barred because evidence on the new element (completion before countdown end) was not adduced at the original trial and reversal was not for insufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative criminal-law changes apply to convictions not final on appeal absent contrary intent)
- People v. Rossi, 18 Cal.3d 295 (Cal. 1976) (Estrada rule applies a fortiori when criminal penalties are repealed)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (Cal. 1996) (forfeiture rule does not apply to Estrada retroactivity claims)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016) (Estrada rests on inference of legislative intent to extend ameliorative changes broadly)
- People v. Jones, 57 Cal.4th 899 (Cal. 2013) (circumstantial evidence can support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)