24 Cal.App.5th 899
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2015 Warren pleaded no contest to three offenses for brandishing a firearm; sentence totaled 7 years including four one-year prior-prison-term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b).
- The complaint alleged nine prior felonies, each tied to prior prison terms; several priors were later reclassified to misdemeanors under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18).
- While serving a 2012 burglary term (allegation No. 9), Warren obtained resentencing under § 1170.18(a) and was released in Feb 2015; three other priors (Nos. 5, 7, 8) were reclassified under § 1170.18(f)/(g) in July 2015.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed four one-year § 667.5(b) enhancements (including one based on No. 9) and stayed others; defense sought striking of enhancements based on Proposition 47 reclassifications and application of the § 667.5(b) “washout” rule.
- The Court of Appeal held the enhancement based on the No. 9 prior must be stricken because a § 1170.18 reclassified conviction is a misdemeanor “for all purposes,” and construed the § 667.5(b) washout provision to allow unrelated reclassified priors’ served prison terms to be disregarded for washout purposes.
- Remedy: All one-year § 667.5(b) enhancements (imposed and stayed) were stricken; case remanded for resentencing and recalculation of PRCS time if in-custody credits exceed the new sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Proposition 47–reclassified prior (No. 9) may support a § 667.5(b) prior-prison-term enhancement | Reclassification doesn’t negate that the defendant actually served a prison term; enhancement targets the prior prison term and deterrence, so it still applies | A § 1170.18 reclassified conviction is a misdemeanor “for all purposes,” so it cannot serve as a prior felony basis for § 667.5(b) | Enhancement based on No.9 reversed; reclassified priors cannot be treated as prior felonies for § 667.5(b) purposes |
| Whether unreclassified prior enhancements (Nos. 3,4,6) survive where intervening priors were reclassified, invoking the § 667.5(b) 5‑year “washout” | Reclassified priors’ served prison time remains a factual incarceration event; literal washout requires five continuous years free of both felony convictions and custody, so washout not satisfied | Washout should ignore incarceration imposed for offenses that have since been reclassified under § 1170.18, because Prop. 47’s intent was to relieve both felony status and felony sentences | Court adopted defendant’s view: served terms for reclassified priors can be disregarded for washout; enhancements for Nos.3,4,6 were stricken |
| Whether trial court should strike (rather than stay) enhancements that were based on priors reclassified by Prop. 47 | — (People conceded at argument) | Enhancements based on reclassified priors must be stricken | Court ordered all § 667.5(b) one‑year enhancements (including those previously stayed) stricken |
| Whether excess custody credits should reduce PRCS term on resentencing | People conceded that excess credits should reduce PRCS under Steward | Defendant requested reduction of PRCS by excess custody credits following resentencing | Court directed trial court on remand to calculate in‑custody credits and reduce PRCS by any excess credits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Abdallah, 246 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App.) (applied Prop 47 reclassification to trigger washout in comparable setting)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (Cal.) (reducing a wobbler under § 17(b) generally precludes its use as a prior felony)
- People v. Prather, 50 Cal.3d 428 (Cal.) (§ 667.5(b) enhancement is aimed primarily at the prior felony, not merely the fact of prior imprisonment)
- People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal.) (distinction between prior felonies and prior prison terms is untenable for enhancement purposes)
- People v. Coronado, 12 Cal.4th 145 (Cal.) (prior prison‑term enhancements reflect recidivist status; discussed interplay with other enhancements)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (Cal.) (interpreting voter‑enacted initiatives in light of voters’ intent can justify nonliteral constructions)
- People v. Steward, 20 Cal.App.5th 407 (Cal. Ct. App.) (excess custody credits after resentencing apply to reduce PRCS/mandatory supervision)