P v. Jones (3rd Dist.) On Appeal, the Appellate Court Has a Duty to Apply the Law as it Exists When the Appellate Court Renders Its Decision

A jury convicted Mr. Jones of residential burglary.  The trial court found true allegations that Jones had two previous "strike" convictions (residential burglaries from 1994 & 1996) and had served seven prior prison terms under PC 667.5(b).

At the time of Jones' sentencing, the trial court chose to dismiss one of Jones' prior strikes.  Had the trial not done so, Jones would have received a mandatory life sentence.  The trial court stated for the record the reasons its was dismissing one of Jones' strikes.  Per the opinion, the record shows the trial court engaged in a "robust analysis" which resulted in a explanation that was "specific, focused, and long".   The result was instead of a life sentence, Jones got 25 years.

However, the court's minute order (a written synopsis of the court proceedings) did not contain a recitation of the court's reasoning regarding its decision to dismiss the strike.  On appeal, the state asserts that the Third District should remand the matter for the trial court to augment its minute order with a written order reflecting the explanation from the record.  The reason for the state's position is that prior to January 1, 2015, PC 1385 required the trial court to include within its minute order, a written explanation explaining its decision to strike a prior conviction.  Since Jones' sentencing hearing was prior to 2015, the court should have to amend its minute order to comply with the law in effect when the minute order was created.

In the published portion of its opinion, the Third District disagrees and affirms.

This is a case where the interpretation of the legal principle at issue dwarfs the consequences the decision has under these circumstances.  Whether the trial court is made to cut and paste its more than adequate reasoning for dismissing Jones' strike from the transcript to the minute order is for all practical purposes meaningless.  But the issue of what law an appellate court shall apply when the law has been changed between the judicial order being appealed and the case reaching the appellate court is an issue of much contention within the context of 2012's Proposition 36 and 2014's Proposition 47.  And as an initiative to decriminalize marijuana could pass this November, this is an issue likely to recur.  

This panel's position is clear.  “If the judgment is not yet final because it is on appeal, the appellate court has a duty to apply the law as it exists when the appellate court renders its decision. [Citations.]”  The state responds that changes to the penal code are not to be applied retroactively absent an expressed intent otherwise.  The panel responds that this has no application to the above cited rule, effectively saying that "retroactively" implicitly contains the assumption that the case is final for appellate purposes.  In other words, if the case is not final, application of the new law is not retroactive.  The panel refuses to remand a case back to the trial court to fulfill a duty that exists no longer.  

It is an interesting holding on a legal issue we're guaranteed to see again (and again).