People v. Wilson CA4/2
E063844
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 12, 2016Background
- Defendant David Wilson pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree burglary (count 1) as part of a plea bargain; other burglary counts were dismissed and he signed a Harvey waiver permitting the court to consider dismissed counts for sentencing.
- At sentencing the court imposed jail time and $1,550 in victim restitution based on aggregate loss from all incidents.
- After Proposition 47, defendant petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.18 to recall and resentenced the burglary conviction as a misdemeanor, asserting the value of the property taken in the convicted burglary did not exceed $950.
- The People opposed, arguing the court could aggregate losses from dismissed counts (including use of another’s credit card) to exceed $950; they submitted itemized values totaling $1,053.53 across incidents but conceded the loss for the guilty count alone was $353.84.
- The trial court found the loss for the convicted count was under $950 but denied relief because, relying on the Harvey waiver, it aggregated losses from dismissed counts to exceed $950 and held defendant ineligible.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding aggregation based on dismissed counts was impermissible when determining eligibility under Proposition 47 and that the People’s concession established the convicted-count value was below $950.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may aggregate the value of property from dismissed counts (considering a Harvey waiver) with the convicted count to determine Proposition 47 eligibility | Aggregation permitted; Harvey waiver lets court consider dismissed counts so total loss > $950 bars relief | Court must consider only value of property taken in the convicted count; dismissed counts cannot be aggregated to defeat § 1170.18 relief | Aggregation from dismissed counts is not permitted; eligibility is based on value of property in the convicted count alone |
| Who bears the burden to prove value ≤ $950 for Proposition 47 relief | People implied defendant failed to prove value since petition contained only a bare allegation | Defendant argued People’s written concession on value of the convicted count relieved him of burden | Defendant bears burden, but the People’s concession that the convicted-count loss was $353.84 sufficed to meet it in this case |
| Whether a court may refuse resentencing based on being "outside the spirit" of Proposition 47 | People argued trial court could deny relief based on overall culpability and aggregated loss contrary to statute’s purpose | Defendant argued courts cannot deny relief based on subjective "spirit" when statute provides discrete criteria | Court held refusal based on subjective ‘‘spirit’’ is improper; only statutory criteria and danger-to-public-safety inquiry are authorized |
| Whether remand may include an inquiry into dangerousness under § 1170.18(b) | People noted court may consider dangerousness on remand | Defendant did not oppose such an inquiry | Court permitted discretionary dangerousness inquiry on remand if warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hoffman, 241 Cal.App.4th 1304 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (rejects aggregating values from multiple dismissed counts to deny Proposition 47 relief and limits Harvey-waiver use)
- People v. Sherow, 239 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (interprets § 1170.18 burden and Proposition 47 eligibility procedure)
- People v. Perkins, 244 Cal.App.4th 129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (discusses petitioner’s burden to establish value ≤ $950 and evidentiary requirements)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (overview of Proposition 47’s resentencing scheme)
- People v. Mendez, 234 Cal.App.3d 1773 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (district attorney concessions bind the People)
- People v. Harvey, 25 Cal.3d 754 (Cal. 1979) (allows defendant to waive rights to challenge consideration of dismissed counts at sentencing)