People v. Perry
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 189
| Cal. Ct. App. 2nd | 2016Background
- In 2011 Perry was charged with two counts of second-degree robbery and a prior-robbery enhancement; one robbery count was later dismissed for insufficient evidence and the information was amended to add a grand theft from the person (Pen. Code § 487(c)).
- Perry pleaded no contest to grand theft from the person and admitted the prior, in exchange for a six-year prison sentence and dismissal of the remaining robbery count; he served ~3.5 years before Proposition 47 took effect.
- Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) reclassified certain theft and drug offenses as misdemeanors and created a resentencing procedure (Pen. Code § 1170.18) for persons currently serving qualifying felony sentences.
- Perry petitioned under § 1170.18; the People conceded eligibility but asked the trial court to vacate the plea agreement and reinstate dismissed robbery charges if resentencing were granted.
- The trial court granted resentencing to a misdemeanor sentence (180 days county jail, credit for time served) and denied the People’s request to vacate the plea agreement; the People appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Perry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a resentencing under Prop 47 that reduces a conviction obtained by plea can be granted without permitting the People to vacate the plea and reinstate dismissed charges | Resentencing would deprive the People of the benefit of the plea bargain; under Collins the People may withdraw if a change in law destroys the bargain | § 1170.18 expressly applies to pleas and mandates resentencing unless the defendant poses unreasonable public-safety risk; plea agreements do not override the statute | Court affirmed: resentencing under § 1170.18 applies to plea convictions and the People may not vacate pleas simply because resentencing reduces the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (interpreting § 1170.18 and defining “currently serving” for Prop 47 resentencing)
- T.W. v. Superior Court, 236 Cal.App.4th 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (held § 1170.18 applies to convictions obtained by plea)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.4th 244 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (majority held People may withdraw pleas under Collins when resentencing would defeat plea benefits)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) (holding change in law that makes performance of plea impossible may allow People to vacate plea and reinstate charges)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013) (rules that plea agreements incorporate the State’s power to change laws and statutory consequences may attach later)
- People v. Cromer, 24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. 2001) (standards for de novo review of pure legal questions)
- People v. Hoffman, 241 Cal.App.4th 1304 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (§ 1170.18’s mandatory resentencing language and limited judicial discretion)
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (Cal. 2010) (principles of initiative/statutory interpretation)
- People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (Cal. 2000) (statutory interpretation canon cited)