People v. Vasquez
247 Cal. App. 4th 513
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1995 Vasquez was convicted of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code § 666), a felony, and received a 16‑month state prison sentence.
- Proposition 47 (enacted Nov. 2014) reclassified certain drug- and theft-related felonies/wobblers as misdemeanors and amended Penal Code § 666.
- In May 2015 Vasquez filed a § 1170.18(f) petition to have his 1995 conviction designated a misdemeanor and submitted a proposed order asserting that his 16‑month sentence had been vacated.
- The prosecutor agreed the conviction qualified; the trial court granted redesignation but refused to change the already completed sentence, stating sentences had been served.
- Vasquez appealed, arguing § 1170.18 required vacatur/resentencing of his completed sentence so the offense would be a "misdemeanor for all purposes," including immigration consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170.18 authorizes vacating or altering a sentence that has already been completed after redesignation under subdivisions (f)/(g) | Vasquez: once conviction is redesignated a misdemeanor, the court must vacate the original felony sentence and impose a misdemeanor sentence (so it is a misdemeanor "for all purposes") | Respondent/Trial court: § 1170.18(f)/(g) allows designation only; resentencing authority is limited to those "currently serving" under (a)/(b) | Court held § 1170.18 does not authorize vacatur or resentencing of a completed sentence; resentencing limited to those currently serving under (a)/(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence once execution of sentence has commenced)
- People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (apply statutory construction principles to voter initiatives)
- People v. Hendrix, 16 Cal.4th 508 (clear statutory language controls; no need for judicial construction)
- Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal.4th 1094 (expressing some things in a statute implies exclusion of others)
- People v. Guzman, 35 Cal.4th 577 (courts must not add omitted provisions to statutes)
- Eddie E. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.4th 319 ("or" denotes disjunctive categories in statutes)
- People v. McGowan, 242 Cal.App.4th 377 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (describing Proposition 47 effects)
- People v. Solis, 245 Cal.App.4th 1099 (discussion of Prop. 47 amendment to § 666)