People v. Perkins CA2/2, B269018

In 1992 Perkins was convicted of receiving stolen property (a felony at the time).
In 2009 he pleaded guilty to making criminal threats and admitted three prior prison-term felony convictions (including the 1992 conviction); the court imposed a 9-year term: 6 years for the substantive count and 1 year for each prior prison term enhancement.
In 2015 Perkins successfully obtained redesignation of the 1992 conviction as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18).
Perkins then moved to reduce his 2009 sentence by one year, arguing the prior-prison-term enhancement based on the 1992 felony no longer applies now that the conviction is a misdemeanor; the trial court denied relief.
Perkins appealed and filed a habeas petition; the Court of Appeal considered both and affirmed the trial court’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Proposition 47 redesignation of a prior felony to a misdemeanor requires resentencing of an unrelated, already-imposed sentence that was enhanced by that prior felony	People: The enhancement remains valid because the redesignation does not operate retroactively to disturb final judgments or past enhancements	Perkins: Prop 47 makes the redesignated conviction a “misdemeanor for all purposes,” so the enhancement must be reduced; alternatively equal protection or lenity require relief	Court: No. Prop 47 is prospective for purposes of enhancements to final sentences; the prior conviction was a felony when the 2009 sentence was imposed, so the enhancement stands
Whether equal protection requires retroactive application of Prop 47 to remove enhancements based on prior convictions	People: Prospectivity is rationally related to legitimate penological interests; no equal protection violation	Perkins: Denying retroactivity creates two classes of similarly situated defendants (past vs. future) and is therefore unequal	Court: No. Prospectivity of ameliorative sentencing statutes is permissible and rational; equal protection is not violated

People v. Jones, 1 Cal.App.5th 221 (affirming nonretroactivity of Prop 47 for prior-enhancement relief)
People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (2013) (section 17 “misdemeanor for all purposes” language is applied prospectively)
People v. Tenner, 6 Cal.4th 559 (1993) (prior prison-term enhancement requires proof prior conviction was a felony when used)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative statutes applies only to nonfinal judgments)
People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (2016) (statutory purpose of saving money does not mandate readings maximizing savings)
People v. Flores, 92 Cal.App.3d 461 (1979) (statutory destruction of records can show clear legislative intent to eliminate enhancement use)
In re Chavez, 114 Cal.App.4th 989 (2004) (equal protection/retroactivity analysis where legislature intended retroactivity)
People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (2003) (prospective-only application of ameliorative statutes does not violate equal protection)