People v. Warren
234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 733
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Guy Barrett Warren pleaded no contest to three offenses for brandishing a gun and was sentenced to seven years, including four one‑year prior‑prison‑term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b).
- The prosecution alleged nine prior convictions; four of those priors (1997, 2005 petty thefts and a 2008 burglary, and a 2012 burglary) were later reclassified to misdemeanors under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18).
- The trial court nevertheless imposed four § 667.5(b) one‑year enhancements (for priors numbered 3, 4, 6, and 9) and stayed others; it struck an unrelated 1986 strike under Romero.
- Warren challenged: (1) that the enhancement based on the 2012 burglary (allegation No. 9) was invalid because it had been reclassified as a misdemeanor; and (2) that the § 667.5(b) washout rule should apply to other priors (so enhancements for allegations Nos. 3, 4, 6 should be stricken) because intervening priors were converted to misdemeanors.
- The court concluded Proposition 47’s “misdemeanor for all purposes” language bars use of reclassified priors as § 667.5(b) predicates and held the washout provision must be interpreted to permit disregarding prison time that was imposed for offenses later reclassified under § 1170.18.
- Remedy: the court struck all one‑year § 667.5(b) enhancements (including those previously stayed), vacated the sentence, remanded for resentencing, and directed the trial court to account for excess custody credits in reducing PRCS time.
Issues
| Issue | Warren's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior conviction reclassified to a misdemeanor under Prop. 47 can serve as a predicate felony for a § 667.5(b) prior‑prison‑term enhancement | Reclassified prior is a "misdemeanor for all purposes," so it cannot support a § 667.5(b) enhancement | Reclassification does not erase the fact the defendant served a prior prison term; enhancement targets the prior prison term and deterrence value | Enhancement based on prior reclassified under § 1170.18 must be stricken — a reclassified prior cannot be used to impose § 667.5(b) enhancements |
| Whether § 667.5(b)’s washout (no enhancement if defendant was free of both felony convictions and incarceration for five years after release) applies when intervening priors were reclassified under Prop. 47 but the defendant actually served prison terms for them | Washout should apply because Prop. 47 intended to relieve petitioners of both felony status and felony sentence effects; prison time for reclassified priors should not defeat washout | Literal washout text requires five years free of both felony convictions and incarceration; reclassified priors still involved served prison time so washout not satisfied | Court harmonized statutes: prison terms imposed for offenses later reclassified under § 1170.18 shall not defeat the washout — enhancements for Nos. 3, 4, 6 are stricken because five‑year washout is met when reclassified priors are treated as misdemeanors |
| Whether excess custody credits should reduce PRCS time after resentencing | If enhancements are stricken and resentencing shortens the term below credited custody, the excess credits should reduce PRCS | Conceded by People on remand | Court directed trial court to compute custody credits and reduce PRCS term by any excess (following People v. Steward) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Abdallah, 246 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held a reclassified prior may prevent a § 667.5(b) enhancement under the washout circumstances presented)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (Cal.) (reduction of a wobbler to a misdemeanor generally precludes its use as a prior felony)
- People v. Prather, 50 Cal.3d 428 (Cal.) (§ 667.5(b) targets prior felony convictions as a class — prior prison term is an indicium of seriousness)
- People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal.) (rejects treating prior prison term as independent basis for enhancement when tied to same prior felony)
- People v. Coronado, 12 Cal.4th 145 (Cal.) (distinguishes enhancements that target offender’s recidivist status from those targeting underlying conduct)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (Cal.) (supports harmonizing voter‑enacted statutes with other penal provisions to effectuate voter intent)
- People v. Steward, 20 Cal.App.5th 407 (Cal. Ct. App.) (excess custody credits after resentencing should reduce PRCS time)