244 Cal.App.4th 1251
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2011 Perry was charged with second-degree robbery and later with grand theft from the person; a prior robbery conviction was alleged as an enhancement.
- Perry pleaded no contest to grand theft person and admitted the prior, receiving a six-year prison term; the second-degree robbery count was dismissed per the plea.
- Perry had accrued pretrial custody credits and served about three-plus years when Proposition 47 (2014) reclassified certain theft offenses as misdemeanors and authorized resentencing under Penal Code §1170.18.
- Perry petitioned under §1170.18 to recall and reduce his felony grand theft person to a misdemeanor; the trial court granted resentencing to county jail time and denied the People’s request to vacate the plea and reinstate dismissed robbery charges.
- The People appealed, arguing resentencing deprived them of the benefit of the plea bargain and that the court should have vacated the plea and reinstated the original charges instead of granting §1170.18 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1170.18 resentencing may be applied to convictions obtained by plea without permitting the People to rescind the plea and reinstate dismissed charges | Proposition 47’s resentencing undermines the People’s bargained-for benefit; under Collins the People may vacate pleas when a law change destroys the plea’s assumptions | §1170.18 by its plain language applies to pleas; the statute mandates resentencing unless the court finds an unreasonable public-safety risk, and does not authorize reinstating dismissed counts | Court affirmed: §1170.18 applies to pleas and trial courts must resentencing eligible defendants unless they pose an unreasonable risk; People may not unilaterally vacate pleas and reinstate charges here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (2015) (interpreting §1170.18 resentencing eligibility)
- People v. Cromer, 24 Cal.4th 889 (2001) (standard of de novo review for legal questions)
- People v. Hoffman, 241 Cal.App.4th 1304 (2015) (noting mandatory resentencing unless unreasonable public-safety risk)
- T.W. v. Superior Court, 236 Cal.App.4th 646 (2015) (applied §1170.18 to pleas; rejected plea-disqualifier)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.4th 244 (2015) (majority held People may rescind plea under Collins when law change deprives People of bargain)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (1978) (permitted vacatur of pleas when subsequent law change makes plea’s purpose impossible)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (2013) (plea agreements incorporate state’s reserve power to change law; subsequent statutory changes generally do not void pleas)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (defendant cannot be punished for exercising a statutory or constitutional right)