People v. Quinones
175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 906
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- The case asks whether an arming enhancement that was found true by the jury but was dismissed for sentencing purposes can disqualify Quinones from recall under Prop 36.
- Quinones was convicted of heroin possession for sale, transportation of a controlled substance, and felon-in-possession of a firearm, with a jury finding he was armed during the offenses.
- The sentencing judge struck the arming enhancement as unnecessary but imposed the felon-in-possession punishment, resulting in a 75-years-to-life sentence.
- In 2013 Quinones sought recall under Prop 36, arguing the arming enhancement was not part of the record for purposes of eligibility.
- The People contended the enhancement was still a true finding and thus disqualifying, even if stricken for sentencing.
- The trial court denied recall eligibility under Prop 36, and Quinones appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arming enhancement disqualifies recall under Prop. 36 | Quinones: enhancement not part of record since struck | Quinones: enhancement remains a true finding in record | Yes; enhancement disqualifies recall; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Shirley, 18 Cal.App.4th 40 (Cal.App.4th 1993) (court may strike an enhancement yet its truth remains relevant for serious-ness)
- People v. White, 223 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal.App.4th 2014) (consider recall discretion where arming evidenced by record)
- People v. Superior Court (Kaulick), 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (two-step Prop. 36 recall framework; eligibility first)
- People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (assists interpretation of Prop. 36 eligibility)
- Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal.4th 1996) (establishes Romero recall framework for resentencing)