People v. Yearwood
213 Cal. App. 4th 161
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Yearwood convicted in 2011 of unauthorized marijuana in prison; sentenced as a third-strike offender to 25 years to life plus one year
- Prop. 36 enacted November 6, 2012; amended 667 and 1170.12 and added 1170.126
- Act limits life term for non-serious/violent felonies unless exceptions are proven
- Section 1170.126 creates postconviction recall eligibility for indeterminate-life inmates not defined as serious/violent felonies
- Issue presented: whether amendments to 667 and 1170.12 apply retroactively to pre-Act judgments not final as of the Act’s effective date;9
- Court held the Estrada rule does not apply; amendments operate prospectively; 1170.126 functions as saving clause; recall petition remains sole remedy for pre-Act inmates
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of the amendments to 667 and 1170.12 | Yearwood argues retroactive application | Respondent contends only recall under 1170.126 is available | Amendments prospective-only; Estrada does not apply |
| Interpretation of 1170.126(b)'s reach | Argues ambiguity about nonfinal judgments | Argues broad application to indeterminate-life inmates | 1170.126(b) applies to all inmates serving indeterminate life terms under former law; saving clause functionally present |
| Effect of prospective-only application on equal protection | Equal protection violation due to timing | Prisoner status not suspect class; rational basis supports distinction | Prospective application does not violate equal protection |
| Role of 1170.126(k) and retroactivity | Argues 1170.126(k) mandates retroactive effect | Section 1170.126(k) preserves other remedies; does not compel retroactivity | 1170.126(k) does not compel retroactive application of amended sections |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (mitigation of punishment generally retroactive absent saving clause when judgment nonfinal)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003) (extrinsic aids; equal protection not violated by timing of ameliorative statute)
- Sunset Beach, 209 Cal.App.4th 1182 (Cal. App. 4th 2012) (ballot-initiative interpretation; relevance to intent and saving clauses)
- In re N.D., 167 Cal.App.4th 885 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (nonfinal judgments and changes to welfare/custody-like provisions retroactivity considerations)
- Pedro T., 8 Cal.4th 1041 (Cal. 1994) (Estrada rule exceptions; retroactivity depending on legislative intent)
- Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (Estrada rule not required; saving clause and public-safety concerns discussed)
- Floyd v. Cruz, People v. Cruz, 207 Cal.App.4th 664 (Cal. App. 4th 2012) (equal protection and saving clause considerations in sentencing reforms)
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974) (confidential officer records; Pitchess discovery requirements)