People v. Vinson, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1190

Vinson was convicted by a jury of petty theft after previously being convicted of theft offenses (former § 666).
A bifurcated trial found he had served two prior prison terms under § 667.5, subd. (b).
He was sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay various fees and fines, then appealed.
The Court addresses whether Assembly Bill 1844’s amendment to § 666 retroactively applies to Vinson.
The amendment raises the required prior recidivism to three qualifying convictions for felony sentencing, and the number of prior incarceration periods is disputed.
The majority concludes the amendment applies retroactively and that the record supports the third prior conviction; the precise number of periods of incarceration remains undecidedment due to ambiguity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactive application of § 666 amendment	Vinson	Vinson	Amendment applies retroactively
Three prior convictions and periods of incarceration required	People	Vinson	Statutory ambiguity; three convictions and periods discussed; relief granted pending clarification
Estrada/Nasalga retroactivity framework for ameliorative changes	People	Vinson	Retroactive ameliorative application favored under Estrada/Nasalga

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (establishes retroactive application when amending statutes to lessen punishment)
People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749 (Cal. 2007) (a framework for retroactive interpretation of penal statutes)
Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (Cal. 1996) (ameliorative sentencing provisions generally retroactive absent saving clause)
Figueroa, 20 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. App. 1993) (amendments increasing penalties can be applied retroactively if ameliorative)
Tapia v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 282 (Cal. 1991) (considerations for retroactive application within comprehensive reforms)
People v. Vieira, 35 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2005) (tests finality for retroactive statute application)