87 Cal.App.5th 858
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In Oct 2015, Richard Morgan was stopped for DUI; breath tests showed BAC 0.25%. He was charged with DUI counts elevated to felonies under Veh. Code §23550.5(b).
- The felony elevation was premised on Morgan’s 1981 convictions: three counts of vehicular manslaughter under former Pen. Code §192, subd. 3(a) (unlawful exhibition of speed) and one DUI under former Veh. Code §23101(a).
- Penal Code §191.5 (gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated) was enacted in 1986 and is a listed qualifying prior in Veh. Code §23550.5(b); Morgan’s 1981 convictions predate that statute and are not listed in §23550.5(b).
- The trial court ruled the 1981 convictions, taken together, were equivalent to a §191.5 conviction and therefore properly elevated Morgan’s 2015 DUI misdemeanors to felonies; Morgan was sentenced as a felon.
- On appeal the court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and concluded the plain text of §23550.5(b) applies only to prior convictions for the specifically listed Penal Code sections; it vacated the felony sentence and remanded for misdemeanor resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan’s nonqualifying 1981 convictions can be treated as a prior conviction under Penal Code §191.5 so Veh. Code §23550.5(b) elevates current DUIs to felonies | The 1981 convictions are equivalent to modern §191.5; court may analyze elements (like with foreign priors) and treat them as a qualifying prior | §23550.5(b) applies only to prior convictions for the expressly listed Penal Code/Vehicle Code sections; Morgan was never convicted of §191.5 so his priors do not qualify | The statute’s plain language controls; courts may not rewrite it by treating older, unlisted California convictions as §191.5 priors. Vacated felony sentence and remanded for misdemeanor resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal.4th 415 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v. Doyle, 220 Cal.App.4th 1251 (begin with ordinary meaning of statutory language)
- People v. Crane, 142 Cal.App.4th 425 (elements test applies to foreign convictions treated as California offenses)
- County of San Diego v. State of California, 164 Cal.App.4th 580 (courts cannot expand statute beyond plain language)
- People v. Lopez, 9 Cal.5th 254 (prosecutorial charging discretion and separation of powers)
- In re Alvernaz, 2 Cal.4th 924 (plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion)
- In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (omission of language in one statutory provision is meaningful)