People v. Smit
234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 554
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Defendant Nicholas John Smit was convicted (in the same case) of possession of marijuana for sale and multiple violent offenses, including four counts of attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder; he is serving multiple life terms.
- Proposition 64 (2016) reclassified many marijuana offenses (including former § 11359 possession for sale) from felonies to misdemeanors and created a resentencing vehicle (§ 11361.8) for convictions that would not have been felonies under the Act.
- Section 11359, as amended, preserves felony treatment only where the defendant had certain "prior" convictions (so-called super strikes) or other specified aggravating facts. Attempted murder is listed as a super strike under Penal Code § 667(e)(2)(C)(iv).
- Smit petitioned the superior court under § 11361.8 to reduce his possession-for-sale felony to a misdemeanor. The district attorney argued he was ineligible due to his attempted murder convictions in the same case; the superior court denied relief on that basis.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and concluded that § 11359 requires a prior conviction existing before the marijuana charge; convictions in the same case do not qualify as the requisite prior conviction. The superior court's ineligibility ruling was reversed and the case remanded for consideration of public safety risk under § 11361.8(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction for a disqualifying "super strike" that occurs in the same case as the marijuana possession conviction (but is not a prior conviction) bars relief under Proposition 64 resentencing (§ 11361.8) | AG/District Attorney: any disqualifying conviction (even in the same case) renders petitioner ineligible for resentencing | Smit: only a prior conviction that existed before the marijuana charge disqualifies; convictions in the same case do not bar relief | Held: Disqualifying convictions must be prior to the marijuana charge; same-case convictions do not make petitioner ineligible. Remand to assess unreasonable risk to public safety under § 11361.8(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smit, 224 Cal.App.4th 977 (2014) (appellate decision affirming defendant's underlying convictions)
- People v. Walker, 5 Cal.App.5th 872 (2016) (interpreting Proposition 47 resentencing disqualification and concluding a broad "prior conviction" disqualification applies)
- Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 11 Cal.4th 1243 (1995) (standard: statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Curle v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 1057 (2001) (use of plain statutory language to determine legislative intent)