P v. Fuentes (Cal. SC) Courts May Dismiss Gang Enhancements Under PC 1385(a)

Mr. Fuentes was charged with stealing a car, under VC 10851, and possession of stolen property, PC 496(a).  Attached to these crimes was a gang enhancement pursuant to PC 186.22(b).

Following a chambers conference, the trial court told Fuentes that if he pleaded to the two substantive crimes, it would dismiss the gang enhancement pursuant to PC 1385(a).  Fuentes so pleaded; the court dismissed the 186.22(b) enhancement.  The State appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

The California Supreme Court grants review and affirms.

The issue of whether PC 1385 grants a trial court the power to dismiss a PC 186.22 enhancement involves the interplay between these two statutes.  Section 1385(a), enacted in 1872, grants the trial court the power to dismiss an "action" in the furtherance of justice, an "action" later being construed to mean individual charges and allegations.  Come 1988, the legislature passes PC 186.22, which contains a subsection (now 186.22(g)) which grants, notwithstanding any other law, the power to strike the punishment for 186.22 enhancements.  Finally, in 2000, the legislature enacted subsection 1385(c)(1), codifying the preexisting power of a court to strike the punishment for any enhancement it had the power to dismiss under 1385(a).  

The State argues the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" in 186.22(g) denotes a legislative intent to place 186.22 enhancements beyond the authority previously granted by PC 1385(a).  The opinion replies that "notwithstanding" means "in spite of" and thus only has application to contrary laws, leading to the question of whether the authority granted to courts in 1385(a) is contrary to that in 186.22(g).  Clearly it is not, as the authority in 1385(a) concerns the ability to dismiss while that in 186.22(g) concerns only the ability to strike a punishment (without affecting the future consequences of the enhancement).    

The State then resorts to shotgunning judicial maxims in hopes of hitting a tender spot, but finds no success.  The California Supreme Court demands strong evidence before it will divest the courts of their authority to dismiss under 1385, and doesn't find it here.