People v. Shabazz
237 Cal. App. 4th 303
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Lennal Shabazz pled no contest to two felonies: methamphetamine possession (Health & Safety Code §11377(a)) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code §496(a)).
- He was sentenced on March 21, 2014 to two concurrent years in county jail, received 272 days’ presentence custody credit, and completed his sentence on September 24, 2014.
- After sentencing but while this appeal was pending, voters enacted Proposition 47 (Nov. 4, 2014), which reclassified many low-level drug and theft felonies as misdemeanors and added Penal Code §1170.18 governing retroactive relief.
- Proposition 47 permits resentencing for persons currently serving sentences and provides a separate application procedure for persons who have completed their sentences (§1170.18(f)–(h)).
- The parties agree the stolen property was under $950 and Shabazz has no apparent disqualifying prior convictions qualifying him for relief under Prop. 47.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court must reduce convictions to misdemeanors under Prop. 47 on direct appeal | People: Prop. 47 is not automatic on appeal for persons who completed sentence; relief is provided by statutory procedures in §1170.18 | Shabazz: Prop. 47’s amendment reducing punishment should apply because judgment is not final and Estrada favors retroactive reduction | Court: Prop. 47 does not authorize the appellate court to unilaterally reduce convictions for persons who completed sentence; defendant must file an application in trial court under §1170.18(f)–(h) |
| Whether defendant is eligible for misdemeanor designation under Prop. 47 | People: Eligibility requires checking for disqualifying priors and the statutory application process must be used | Shabazz: No disqualifying priors; thus he should receive reduction | Court: Defendant appears eligible but must follow §1170.18(f) application process in trial court; appellate court cannot grant relief sua sponte |
| Whether Proposition 47’s reductions apply retroactively on appeal (finality issue) | People: Voter intent controlled; Prop. 47 sets procedures for non-final and post-sentence cases, indicating no automatic appellate modification | Shabazz: Estrada presumption favors applying ameliorative changes where judgment not final | Held: Voter-prescribed remedy governs; because Prop. 47 contains specific procedures for post-sentence applicants, it precludes automatic appellate reduction despite Estrada |
| Whether sentence should be modified to include statutory criminal-lab/penalty fees omitted by trial court | People: Mandatory $50 laboratory fee plus statutorily required penalties and surcharges must be imposed for HS §11377 conviction | (No separate defense argument on this point) | Court: Modified judgment to impose $50 lab fee plus $155 in mandatory penalties/surcharges; affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende review obligations for appointed counsel)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (appellate counsel procedures when no arguable issues)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative penal statutes presumptively apply to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (contextual qualification to Estrada rule)
- People v. Hajek & Vo, 58 Cal.4th 1144 (Cal. 2014) (discussion of Estrada and legislative intent)
- In re Pedro T., 8 Cal.4th 1041 (Cal. 1994) (Estrada grounded in legislative intent analysis)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (Cal. 1996) (retroactivity and legislative intent as controlling consideration)
- Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 595 (Cal. 2014) (appealability of post-judgment recall petitions)
- People v. Valencia, 226 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (criminal laboratory analysis fee applies to certain drug convictions)
- People v. Talibdeen, 27 Cal.4th 1151 (Cal. 2002) (penalties and surcharge authority for fines)