People v. Valenzuela
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 651
| Cal. | 2019Background
- In 2013 defendant was convicted of grand theft (bike worth ~$200) and of street terrorism under Penal Code §186.22(a) for participating in a criminal street gang and promoting felonious conduct.
- Defendant obtained resentencing under Proposition 47, which reclassified certain theft felonies as misdemeanors and authorized recall/resentencing (Pen. Code §1170.18). His grand theft was redesignated as misdemeanor petty theft.
- At resentencing the question arose whether the §186.22(a) street terrorism conviction must be dismissed because its element of promoting/assisting a felony depended on the now-reduced theft.
- The trial court denied relief as to the street-terrorism conviction; the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review.
- The majority reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that a full Proposition 47 resentencing eliminated an essential element of the street-terrorism offense when the underlying theft was redesignated a misdemeanor.
- Two separate dissents argued (1) §186.22(a) is a serious, non-theft, “theft-plus” or gang offense outside Prop 47’s ambit, and (2) Buycks/Estrada reasoning does not support vacating a §186.22(a) conviction that does not require a predicate conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 47 resentencing that redesignated an underlying theft as a misdemeanor requires dismissal of a concurrent §186.22(a) conviction that rested on that theft | The People: §186.22(a) requires felonious conduct but not a separate felony conviction; redesignation of the theft does not negate defendant's prior felonious conduct as it existed in 2013 | Valenzuela: Reduction of the theft conviction removes the felonious-character element relied on for §186.22(a), so the gang conviction must be dismissed at full resentencing | Majority: Dismiss. Full resentencing under Prop 47 removed an essential element (promotion/assistance of a felony) because the underlying theft is no longer felonious |
| Whether Buycks and the full-resentencing rule permit revisiting and eliminating convictions/enhancements tied to felonies reduced under Prop 47 | The People: Buycks limited to enhancements that explicitly required a prior felony; not applicable to §186.22(a) which requires felonious conduct but not a conviction | Valenzuela: Buycks requires trial courts at full resentencing to reevaluate and remove any sentence or conviction that depends on an underlying felony now redesignated as a misdemeanor | Majority: Applies Buycks; full resentencing permits reevaluation and dismissal of the §186.22(a) conviction when an essential felonious element is abrogated |
| Whether Estrada retroactivity doctrine independently supports vacating §186.22(a) where the underlying conduct is no longer felonious | The People: Estrada/Buysck retroactivity cannot be stretched to eliminate convictions where statute does not amend the offense itself | Valenzuela (alternative): Ameliorative changes should apply to nonfinal judgments; conduct susceptible to reassessment when no longer felonious | Majority: Endorses limited retroactivity reasoning (in context of full resentencing) to conclude the felonious character may be reassessed for nonfinal judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (full resentencing under Prop 47 requires reevaluation of enhancements and convictions tied to felonies reduced to misdemeanors)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative criminal-law changes presumptively apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (elements of §186.22(a): active participation, knowledge of gang’s pattern, and willful promotion/assistance of felonious conduct)
- People v. Lamas, 42 Cal.4th 516 (Cal. 2007) (misdemeanor conduct cannot satisfy the “felonious criminal conduct” element of §186.22(a))
- People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2012) (§186.22(a) requires promotion/furtherance of specific conduct, not inchoate future conduct)
- People v. Castenada, 23 Cal.4th 743 (Cal. 2000) (liability under §186.22(a) is limited to those who promote a specific felony committed by gang members)