People v. Tran
242 Cal. App. 4th 877
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2005 Tran pled no contest to felony assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245(a)(1)) and to being a misdemeanant in possession of a firearm; probation was granted and imposition of sentence suspended.
- The probation/presentence report summarized police statements that Tran pursued and fired multiple rounds at the front door of the victim’s home; the report was available to defense before sentencing.
- Tran later moved under Penal Code § 17(b) to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor and under § 1203.4 to expunge his record after completing probation; the trial court repeatedly denied § 17(b) relief but granted expungement.
- Tran argued the court (1) improperly relied on postplea facts not proven at trial, (2) was bound by the plea agreement which allegedly precluded consideration of underlying shooting facts, (3) must grant § 17(b) relief as a matter of right after successful probation, and (4) had impliedly promised to grant the next § 17(b) motion.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court properly considered the probation report in exercising § 17(b) discretion, the plea did not limit that discretion, successful probation does not entitle a defendant to mandatory § 17(b) relief, and no binding promise was made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may consider postplea probation report facts when ruling on a § 17(b) motion | Court may consider probation report facts and circumstances in exercising § 17(b) discretion | Court violated due process by relying on facts not elements of the conviction or proved at trial | Held: Trial court may consider probation report and underlying facts in § 17(b) analysis; doing so does not change the conviction |
| Whether the plea agreement barred consideration of underlying offense facts for § 17(b) purposes | Plea did not contain any term limiting the court’s statutory § 17(b) discretion | Plea terms precluded treating the offense as involving a firearm/shooting for § 17(b) purposes | Held: No plea term limited court’s discretion; court did not rewrite the plea by considering the facts |
| Whether successful completion of probation entitles a defendant as a matter of right to § 17(b) reclassification | § 17(b) is discretionary; successful probation is a factor but not an entitlement | Completion of probation creates a right to the statutory rehabilitation including reclassification | Held: Completion of probation does not mandate § 17(b) relief; relief remains discretionary |
| Whether the trial court made an implied promise to grant relief after another year of good conduct | Court’s comment was a suggestion to wait and consider another motion, not a promise to grant relief | Court’s statement created an implied binding promise to grant relief after a year | Held: No implied promise; the court set a minimum waiting period for reconsideration, not a guarantee of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Alvarez, 14 Cal.4th 968 (1997) (trial must consider nature and circumstances of offense and offender when exercising § 17(b) discretion)
- People v. Feyrer, 48 Cal.4th 426 (2010) (§ 17(b) relief is discretionary; plea record must state express terms and courts will not imply limits on statutory discretion)
- People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (2006) (postplea probation statements cannot be used to alter the record of conviction for purposes of proving prior convictions or enhancements)
- People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (2001) (courts may rely on hearsay in presentence reports when determining probation and sentencing)
- In re Anderson, 69 Cal.2d 613 (1968) (discretionary sentencing requires consideration of all material facts in evidence)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (2013) (wobbler treatment and timing for reduction under § 17(b))
- People v. Hernandez, 46 Cal.3d 194 (1988) (limitations on using probation-report facts to impose sentence-enhancing provisions not pled or proven)