74 Cal.App.5th 993
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Officers executed a warrant at Scarano's home and found a loaded firearm, ammunition, explosive devices, stolen property, methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and other evidence. Defendant was charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, including felon-in-possession (count one).
- Defendant moved to suppress the search-warrant evidence in the magistrate; the magistrate denied the motion. The defendant did not renew that motion in superior court.
- After the court granted his Romero motion, Scarano pleaded no contest to count one under a negotiated agreement: five years supervised probation, one year county jail (credit for time served), and conditions including search, drug treatment, and testing; remaining counts were dismissed.
- While the appeal was pending, Assembly Bill 1950 amended Penal Code §1203.1 to cap felony probation at two years; parties agreed AB1950 is retroactive under In re Estrada.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the magistrate erred in denying suppression and (2) his five-year probation must be reduced to two years under AB1950.
- The Court of Appeal held the suppression challenge was forfeited for failure to renew in superior court, and held AB1950 applies retroactively but remanded for resentencing rather than ordering an automatic reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Scarano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of suppression motion | Forfeited because defendant never renewed the §1538.5 motion in superior court after magistrate denial (Lilienthal). | Magistrate’s denial should be reviewable on appeal without renewal. | Forfeited: defendant failed to renew suppression motion in superior court; appellate review barred. |
| Retroactivity and remedy for AB1950 (probation cap) | AB1950 is retroactive but remedy follows Stamps: remand for resentencing so trial court may reconsider and People may withdraw from plea; restore status quo ante if withdrawn. | AB1950 is retroactive and the court should reduce defendant’s probation term to two years without remand. | AB1950 applies retroactively; remand for resentencing required. Trial court decides whether shortened probation "furthers the interests of society"; if not, court or People may withdraw and parties restored to status quo ante. |
| Whether resentencing on remand is subject to a sentencing cap | People: remand may permit withdrawal and re‑exposure; no blanket cap is required where underlying conviction remains viable (Stamps/Hernandez approach). | Defendant: imposing a longer sentence on remand would defeat the ameliorative purpose and a cap should protect defendants from increased exposure. | Majority rejects a mandatory sentencing cap; issue remains unsettled and appropriate for Supreme Court clarification. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (court may remand when ameliorative change applies retroactively; parties/prosecution may withdraw from plea; trial court retains discretion to withdraw approval)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative penal statutes presumptively apply retroactively to nonfinal convictions)
- People v. Lilienthal, 22 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1978) (to preserve appellate review of a magistrate’s §1538.5 ruling, defendant must renew suppression motion in superior court)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013) (plea agreements are not insulated from subsequent legislative changes intended to apply)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) (when the convicted offense is decriminalized, remand may restore dismissed counts; court discussed limits on increasing defendant’s exposure)
- People v. Griffin, 57 Cal.App.5th 1088 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses retroactivity/remedies for ameliorative changes; split among districts noted)