People v. Sweeney
4 Cal. App. 5th 295
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2003 Leo Sweeney was convicted of 10 felonies related to a take-over bank robbery; counts 8 and 10 were receiving stolen property (a 1984 Toyota van and a 1985 Oldsmobile). He admitted gang enhancements under Penal Code §186.22(b) and two strike priors and received an aggregate sentence of three consecutive 25‑to‑life terms plus 7 years.
- After Proposition 47 (effective Nov. 5, 2014) Sweeney filed a §1170.18 petition to redesignate two receiving-stolen-property felonies as misdemeanors, checking a box alleging the property value did not exceed $950 and signing under penalty of perjury.
- The People and the trial court denied the petition, arguing the gang admission made the convictions non‑qualifying (either because §186.22(d) would elevate misdemeanors to wobblers or because gang enhancements/strikes prevented relief).
- The Court of Appeal held (1) the prosecution could not rely on §186.22(d) because that alternative punishment provision was not pleaded/charged (mutually exclusive with the §186.22(b) enhancement actually alleged), so Sweeney was not categorically ineligible on that basis; and (2) Sweeney nonetheless failed to meet his burden to show the vehicles’ value was $950 or less.
- Because his petition lacked the required factual basis for valuation but the local form and early law made compliance uncertain, the court reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to deny the original petition but grant leave to file an amended petition within a reasonable deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §186.22(b) gang admissions render petitioner categorically ineligible for Prop 47 relief by making the offenses wobblers/felonies under §186.22(d) | Admission of gang enhancements means offenses remain felonies (or wobblers elevated to felonies) so Prop 47 doesn't apply | Eligibility for Prop 47 should be judged as to whether the offense would have been a misdemeanor; sentencing discretion to treat as felony doesn't defeat that | Rejected prosecution: §186.22(d) is an alternative punishment that must be pleaded; because only §186.22(b) was alleged, §186.22(d) could not be invoked to bar relief |
| Whether a conviction accompanied by a gang enhancement/strike is categorically barred from reduction under Prop 47 | Gang enhancement makes the felony a strike and thus non‑qualifying | No general rule prevents a strike felony from being reduced under Prop 47 | Court rejected categorical bar; gang enhancement/strike status alone does not automatically disqualify a petitioner |
| Who bears the burden to prove the <$950 value and what showing is required | People argued petitioner failed to carry burden of proving vehicle values ≤ $950 | Petitioner relied on checked box and sworn petition alleging belief that value ≤ $950 | Held petitioner bears burden and must provide factual basis (not mere "information and belief"); Sweeney failed to show value and petition properly denied but with leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Robert L. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 894 (2003) (discusses §186.22(d) as alternative punishment elevating misdemeanors to wobblers)
- People v. Moomey, 194 Cal.App.4th 850 (2011) (wobbler remains a felony unless reduced at conviction/sentencing)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (2013) (treatment of wobblers and timing of felony/misdemeanor determination)
- People v. Mancebo, 27 Cal.4th 735 (2002) (alternative punishment provisions must be pleaded and proved)
- Lopez v. Superior Court, 160 Cal.App.4th 824 (2008) (mutual exclusivity of §186.22(b) enhancement and §186.22(d) alternative punishment)
- People v. Briceno, 34 Cal.4th 451 (2004) (gang enhancement can convert offenses into strikes for sentencing)
- People v. Rivas-Colon, 241 Cal.App.4th 444 (2015) (petitioner bears burden to show value ≤ $950 under Prop 47)
- People v. Perkins, 244 Cal.App.4th 129 (2016) (affirming need for factual basis for valuation; remedy is denial without prejudice to amend)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (2015) (same remedial approach where local form confused petitioners)
- Baustert v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.4th 1269 (2005) (affidavits based on "information and belief" are hearsay and insufficient)