People v. Valenzuela
209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 860
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Valenzuela stole a $200 bicycle taken from the person and was convicted of grand theft (Pen. Code § 487(c)).
- The jury also found true a gang enhancement (§ 186.22(b)(1)) and convicted him of street terrorism (§ 186.22(a)).
- He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 9 years 8 months.
- After Proposition 47 (Prop. 47; § 1170.18 / § 490.2) went into effect, Valenzuela petitioned and the trial court reclassified his grand theft as a misdemeanor, which eliminated the gang enhancement as to that count.
- The trial court denied relief as to the street terrorism conviction; Valenzuela appealed, arguing the street terrorism conviction should fall once the underlying theft was reduced to a misdemeanor.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding street terrorism does not require a felony conviction so long as the defendant's conduct was felonious when committed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a street terrorism (§ 186.22(a)) conviction is invalid when the underlying felony has been later reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop. 47 | The People: street terrorism stands because it requires proof of participation in felonious conduct at the time of commission, not a contemporaneous felony conviction | Valenzuela: street terrorism must fall because his underlying felony was reclassified as a misdemeanor, eliminating the felony predicate | Held: Affirmed. Street terrorism focuses on conduct that was felonious when committed; later reclassification under § 1170.18 does not invalidate the street terrorism conviction |
| Whether a gang enhancement (§ 186.22(b)(1)) survives when the underlying offense is reduced to a misdemeanor | The People: enhancement requires a felony and may be affected by reclassification | Valenzuela: enhancement should be stricken after reduction | Held: Gang enhancement cannot attach to a misdemeanor; the trial court properly struck it as to the reclassified count |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (explaining gravamen of § 186.22(a) is active gang participation)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (discussing effect of § 1170.18 reclassification and when a wobbler becomes a misdemeanor)
- People v. Feyrer, 48 Cal.4th 426 (holding misdemeanor status under § 17 is not retroactive; offense remains felony until court imposes lesser disposition)
- People v. Ceja, 49 Cal.4th 1 (noting grand theft is generally a wobbler)