People v. Superior Court of Yolo County, 10 Cal. App. 5th 1316

In 2007 Margarita Merced Rodas pleaded no contest to felony transportation of heroin (former § 11352) and received suspended imposition of sentence with three years probation under Proposition 36; other counts and enhancements were dismissed per plea.
Rodas incurred multiple probation violations; a bench warrant issued after she absconded in 2009 and her whereabouts were unknown until 2015.
In 2014 the Legislature amended § 11352 to define “transports” as “to transport for sale,” narrowing the statute so personal-use transport is not the felony. Courts (Ramos, Eagle) applied that amendment retroactively where judgment was not final.
In 2015 Rodas moved in superior court to withdraw her 2007 plea and to vacate the felony conviction (seeking retroactive benefit of the 2014 amendment); the trial court granted an oral motion to withdraw the plea and reinstated the original complaint.
The People sought a writ of mandate; the Court of Appeal held the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because Penal Code § 1018 requires motions to withdraw a plea within six months after an order granting probation when imposition of judgment is suspended, and Rodas did not timely move or appeal the probation order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to permit withdrawal of a 2007 no contest plea in 2015 and/or apply § 11352’s 2014 amendment retroactively	People: Because Rodas failed to move to withdraw her plea within the six‑month limit of Penal Code § 1018 and did not timely appeal the probation order under Penal Code § 1237, the conviction was final for retroactivity purposes and the court lacked jurisdiction to allow withdrawal	Rodas: No final judgment was entered because imposition of sentence was suspended and probation imposed; under Estrada the 2014 ameliorative amendment to § 11352 should apply retroactively, and she could therefore withdraw the plea	Court: § 1018’s six‑month limit is mandatory; the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the belated withdrawal. Because Rodas did not timely appeal the probation order, her conviction was final for retroactivity purposes and she was not entitled to the amendment’s benefit. The order allowing withdrawal is reversed and a peremptory writ directed.

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative statutory changes apply retroactively if judgment is not final)
People v. Miranda, 123 Cal.App.4th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (Pen. Code § 1018 six‑month time limit for withdrawing pleas after probation order is mandatory)
People v. Ramos, 244 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (amendment to § 11352 limiting “transport” to sale applies and affects elements of offense)
People v. Eagle, 246 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (applied similar amendment to § 11379 retroactively where parties conceded Estrada applied)
In re Chavez, 30 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2003) (procedural deadlines for appeals following pleas must be fully and timely complied with)