P v. Brown (4th Dist., Div.2) Another Case Upholding PC 1170.18 Relief Despite the State Not Getting the "Benefit of their Bargain"

Ms. Brown was charged with multiple counts of possessing stolen property and identity theft.  Brown and the State entered into a plea bargain whereby Brown agreed to plead guilty to one of the possession of stolen property counts and accept a two-year jail sentence.  For its part, the State agreed to dismiss the balance of the counts.  The court accepted the plea bargain, took Brown's plea, sentenced her to two years, and dismissed the remaining counts upon motion of the State.

While Brown sat in jail, California voters passed Proposition 47, which had the effect of reducing Brown's possession of stolen property conviction to a straight misdemeanor punishable, at most, by one year in jail.  Brown petitioned the trial court pursuant to PC 1170.18 to reduce her crime to a misdemeanor and resentence her.  The State objected to no avail and the trial court granted the relief sought by Brown.  The State appealed.

A Fourth District panel affirms, agreeing with P v. Gonzalez.

The panel's opinion is very similar to that in Gonzalez.  First, a statutory analysis resulting in the finding that Brown was eligible for the relief she sought.  The State urges the panel to do a little judicial editing of the statute (requiring Brown to prove the State would have offered her the same plea bargain post-Proposition 47, or alternatively, requiring her to prove the dismissed counts were eligible), which it declines to do.  Finally the State tries the "okay she's entitled to the relief, but then we should really get to add back the dismissed charges" tact.  But that dog wont hunt here as the panel points out the Doe v. Harris decision is quite on point in that while a court cannot unilaterally change an executed plea bargain, California lawmakers (legislature or electorate) can, and here they did.

So all that is left is a remand for the trial court to determine whether to place Brown on one year of parole or exercise its discretion to relieve her of that obligation.

[As A.G. Harris is a declared Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate and criminal justice reform is expected to be part of her platform, I wonder how she'll respond to questions about why, after her California voters passed such reforms, she so intensely fought to deny defendants the benefits.]