Prior to November 5, 2014, Mr. Roach pleaded guilty in three felony cases. In sum, he pleaded to: H&S 11377(a), PC 496(a), PC 12021(a)(1), and VC 2800.2. When it came time for sentencing, the trial court imposed an effective total sentence of four years and four months, via the following.
Principal Term 11377(a) ---- 3 years
Subordinate 12021 ---- 8 months consecutive
Subordinate 496(a) ---- 8 months consecutive
2800.2 ---- 3 years concurrent
After November 5, 2014, Mr. Roach filed petitions pursuant to PC 1170.18 to reduce his 11377(a) and 496(a) convictions to misdemeanors. The state conceded that Roach was entitled to the relief he requested. The trial court granted the petitions and reduced the two convictions to misdemeanors. Then the court pronounced a new effective total sentence of . . . wait for it . . . four years and four months.
Principal Term 2800.2 --- 3 years
Subordinate 12021 --- 8 months consecutive
Now Misdo 11377 ---- 140 days
Now Misdo 496 ----100 days
Roach appeals (surprised?). And the First District affirms.
Sometimes a result leaves you with a gnawing feeling it must be illegal, but your search for any authority to confirm your nagging ache of injustice is not just legal hypochondria turns up empty. I imagine the appellate attorney for Mr. Roach may have experienced these symptoms.
What appears simple at first blush, that when your felonies are reduced to misdemeanors the result is a shorter sentence, is quickly complicated when your sentence is compromised partly of crimes that cannot be reduced to misdemeanors. To address this issue, the panel takes a look at cases where a sentence comprised of several crimes is remanded upon reversal of one of the counts, a pretty analogous situation. In those cases, upon remand, the trial court was to pick a new count to be the principal term and go from there. Which is what the trial court did here. While recognizing it would be illegal to impose a total sentence longer than the original sentence, the text of 1170.18 contains no prohibition against imposing the same sentence.
But I am still sympathetic. Roach received a sentence of four years and four months based on four felony convictions. At a later time the electorate determined that two of those felony crimes were actually less serious and reduced them to misdemeanors cutting the maximum punishment by two-thirds. After such a determination, it does seem illogical to impose the identical sentence. Doesn't it?
But alas, there is no cannon of stimulus autem iniquitas.
No comments:
Post a Comment