People v. Sheehy
225 Cal. App. 4th 445
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant had multiple drug and possession convictions (RIF1105737, RIF1202860, RIF1204943, RIF1206319) and was convicted at trial of annoying a child under 18 (§ 647.6) in RIM1217643, which triggered sex-offender registration under § 290.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to felony petty theft with a prior (RIF1300157) on condition of a concurrent two-year term to be served locally under the Realignment Act (§ 1170(h)).
- At sentencing the trial court revoked probation in the four felony cases, imposed concurrent two-year prison terms on those felonies and concurrent 365-day terms on related misdemeanors, and ordered all sentences served in county jail under the Realignment Act.
- The People appealed, arguing the trial court erred because § 1170(h)(3)(C) excludes from local custody any defendant who "is required to register as a sex offender," regardless of whether registration arose from a prior or current conviction.
- The appellate court agreed that the plain language of § 1170(h)(3)(C) disqualifies defendants required to register under § 290 from local service of felony sentences and ordered the local-custody portions stricken; it reversed judgment in RIF1300157 to allow withdrawal of the plea and remanded for resentencing of the remaining cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170(h)(3)(C) excludes defendants who are required to register as sex offenders based on prior (not just current) convictions from serving Realignment sentences locally | § 1170(h)(3)(C) excludes any defendant who "is required to register as a sex offender," so prior registrants are ineligible for county custody | Subpart (3)(C) applies only when registration arises from the current offense; "is" implies current ordering | The court held the plain language excludes anyone required to register under § 290, regardless of whether registration arose from a prior or current conviction. |
| Whether the record supports that defendant was required to register under § 290 | The record (trial conviction, transcripts, probation report) clearly established registration was required | Insufficient evidence that defendant was ordered to register | The court found the evidence sufficient and undisputed that defendant was a registrant. |
| Remedy when Realignment eligibility was a bargained consequence of a plea | People sought correction to require state prison service while preserving other judgments | Defendant argued plea-based local custody was an agreed consequence and reversal affects plea | The court reversed judgment in RIF1300157 and allowed defendant the option to withdraw that guilty plea; remanded for resentencing other counts. |
| Effect of reversing local-custody order on concurrent sentences in other cases | People argued only the custodian designation should change | Defendant argued broader sentencing relief needed if plea withdrawn | Because the three-year term in RIF1300157 was the principal term, reversal necessitated remand for resentencing of the other cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lynch, 209 Cal.App.4th 353 (discusses Realignment Act changes to felony punishment)
- People v. Griffis, 212 Cal.App.4th 956 (explains exclusions to county custody under Realignment)
- People v. Kelly, 215 Cal.App.4th 297 (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning controls)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (rule of lenity applies only where interpretations are in equipoise)
- People v. Avery, 27 Cal.4th 49 (egregious ambiguity standard)
- Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto, 157 Cal.App.4th 728 (presumption that Legislature meant what it said)
- People v. Garcia, 21 Cal.4th 1 (courts should not rewrite clear statutory language)
- People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (defendant entitled to withdraw plea when a promised sentencing consequence is invalidated)