Harris v. Superior Court (Cal Supreme Ct.) There Is No "Benefit of the Bargain" Exception to PC 1170.18.

I previously posted on the Court of Appeal decision in this matter (found here).  

Mr. Harris bonked a man on the head and took the man's phone.  He was charged with robbery, PC 211, and pleaded down to felony grand theft from a person, PC 487 in exchange for a sentence of six years in prison (Harris' exposure on a 211 plea was 15 years).  

In November of 2014, while Harris was in prison, California passed Proposition 47, which reduced certain felony PC 487 crimes (Harris' included) to misdemeanors.  Harris petitioned the trial court to reduce his 487 to a misdemeanor.  The State, understandably, felt cheated and opposed the motion.  Additionally, should the motion be granted, the State wanted to be able to withdraw from the 487 plea agreement and reinstate the 211 charges.  The trial court agreed with the State and gave Harris the Hobson's choice of withdrawing his petition and going quietly back to prison or asserting his statutory right under PC 1170.18 and exposing himself to a 15 year sentence.

Harris petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the Second District in a 2-1 decision.  The California Supreme Court granted review and now reverses.  

The analysis here is interesting, in part, for what it omits, any review or discussion of the lower court's analysis.  In my opinion, this is the Supreme Court giving the lower court's analysis the attention it deserves.

The crux of the issue is the intersection of two prior holdings.  One, Doe v. Harris, that held that plea agreements implicitly incorporate any subsequent change in the law.  The other, P v. Collins, held that when, between the entry of a plea pursuant to a plea bargain and sentencing, a change in law results in the plea being to a crime that is no longer a crime, the State is permitted to withdraw from the plea bargain and reinstate the (still criminal) charges that were dismissed in consideration for the plea to the (now) non-crime.

Justice Chin concludes both that Doe controls and that Collins is distinguishable, in part, because here the change in law occurred post-sentencing.

Now Harris will return to the trial court to have his PC 1170.18 petition heard.