People v. Ruff, 198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 704

Defendant James Tilton Ruff was convicted of second degree robbery and sentenced Sept. 18, 2013, to five years plus two one‑year consecutive prior‑prison‑term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b), for a total of seven years.
One of the prior convictions used for a § 667.5(b) enhancement (Kern County case SF016331A) was for possession of a controlled substance (former Health & Safety Code § 11377(a)); defendant served a prison term for that conviction when it was classified as a felony.
Voters adopted Proposition 47 on Nov. 4, 2014, which reclassified certain wobbler and felony drug/theft offenses as misdemeanors and created Penal Code § 1170.18 permitting post‑conviction reclassification of such felonies to misdemeanors.
After sentencing in this case and while the appeal was pending, the trial court granted Ruff’s § 1170.18 petitions and reclassified SF016331A as a misdemeanor “for all purposes.”
Ruff argued the reclassification required striking the one‑year § 667.5(b) enhancement tied to SF016331A; the People/Attorney General argued Proposition 47 does not operate retroactively to alter enhancements imposed before the reclassification.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Proposition 47 does not retroactively negate prior‑prison‑term enhancements already imposed where the defendant served the prior term while the offense was a felony and the current sentence was enhanced before reclassification.

Issue	People’s Argument	Ruff’s Argument	Held
Whether a § 667.5(b) prior‑prison‑term enhancement must be stricken after the underlying prior felony is later reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop 47/§ 1170.18	Prop 47 does not operate retroactively to undo enhancements already imposed; enhancements punish recidivist status (service of prison term), not underlying conduct	The § 1170.18 reclassification makes the prior conviction a misdemeanor “for all purposes,” so the prior felony cannot support a § 667.5(b) enhancement and must be stricken	Held: No. Enhancement remains valid; Prop 47 does not retroactively reach enhancements imposed on sentences already final when the reclassification occurred

People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (California Supreme Court) (reduction of prior conviction to misdemeanor before commission of later offense prevents use as enhancement)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (California Supreme Court) (rule that penal reductions are presumptively retroactive to nonfinal judgments)
People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (California Supreme Court) (discusses interaction of § 3 presumption against retroactivity and Estrada qualification)
People v. Tenner, 6 Cal.4th 559 (California Supreme Court) (elements required to impose § 667.5(b) enhancement)
People v. Flores, 92 Cal.App.3d 461 (Court of Appeal) (applied retroactivity to eliminate enhancement where legislative scheme showed intent to prevent enhancement)