66 Cal.App.5th 887
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- On July 22, 2019 Schulz drove into oncoming traffic on a blind curve, causing a head‑on collision that injured three people; his BAC was 0.17.
- Charged with two felonies: Vehicle Code §23153(a) and (b) (DUI causing injury), with enhancements; he pled guilty (open plea) and sought reductions to misdemeanors under Penal Code §17(b).
- Trial court denied the §17(b) reductions, suspended imposition, sentenced to five months local custody and five years probation (with two days credit), and Schulz appealed.
- While appeal was pending the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950, amending Penal Code §1203.1(a) to cap felony probation at two years, and adding §1203.1(m) excluding certain offenses (including those with statutory probation lengths) from the two‑year cap.
- Schulz argued AB 1950 applies retroactively under In re Estrada and that he is eligible for a reduced probation term; the People argued Estrada does not apply because probation is not "punishment," and that Vehicle Code §23600 mandates a 3–5 year probation for §23153 offenses.
- The Court of Appeal (Fifth Dist.) affirmed: it held the trial court did not abuse its §17(b) discretion; AB 1950 is retroactive, but §1203.1(m)(1) excludes §23153 convictions because VC §23600 prescribes specific probation lengths, so Schulz is ineligible for the two‑year cap.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying §17(b) reduction of felony DUI‑injury convictions | Denial appropriate given high BAC, blind‑curve head‑on collision, multiple injured victims | Conduct not so egregious to warrant felony; public protection not required | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether AB 1950 (PC §1203.1(a)) applies retroactively and whether Schulz is eligible for ≤2‑year probation | AB 1950 not retroactive because probation is not "punishment"; and in any event VC §23600 (3–5 yrs) bars reduction | AB 1950 applies retroactively under Estrada; §1203.1(m)(1) should be read narrowly so violent‑felony list plus specific‑term requirement both required | Court: AB 1950 is retroactive, but §1203.1(m)(1) excludes offenses that include specific statutory probation lengths; VC §23600 prescribes 3–5 years for §23153, so Schulz is ineligible for the two‑year cap |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption that ameliorative criminal‑law changes apply retroactively to nonfinal cases)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (discusses retroactivity and statutory‑construction presumptions)
- People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (Cal. 2021) (Estrada presumption applies broadly to ameliorative changes)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (explication of Estrada presumption)
- In re C.H., 53 Cal.4th 94 (Cal. 2011) (statutory‑construction rules on ordinary meaning and avoiding surplusage)
- People v. Alvarez (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez)), 14 Cal.4th 968 (Cal. 1997) (standards for trial court discretion under Penal Code §17(b))
- People v. Sims, 59 Cal.App.5th 943 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (applied Estrada to AB 1950 and held probation‑term reduction retroactive)