People v. Zavala CA4/1 ( 2016 )

Filed 2/25/16 P. v. Zavala CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D067558
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD134883)
JOSE LUIS ZAVALA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jay M.
Bloom, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Office of the Primary Public Defender, Randy Mize, Chief Deputy Public
Defender, and Troy A. Britt, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Marvin Mizell and Stacy A. Tyler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
In 2014, the voters approved Proposition 47, adding section 1170.18 to the Penal
Code (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act), and allowing qualifying felony
offenders to seek reclassification of their offenses to misdemeanors, on a retroactive
basis. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subds. (a).)1 Defendant and appellant Jose Zavala
(Appellant) sought such a reclassification, based on his underlying 1998 felony theft
crime. At the time his petition was brought, he remained subject to a civil commitment to
a state hospital as a mentally disordered offender ("MDO"), which began when his prison
sentence was completed in 2002. (§ 2960 et seq. (the MDO Act).)2
Appellant, as a person "who has completed his or her sentence for a conviction" of
a felony (§ 1170.18, subds. (f), (g), (h)), claimed entitlement to the Proposition 47
redesignation. At the same time his motion was brought, the trial court had before it an
annual petition brought by the People, Respondent here, to extend Appellant's civil
commitment as an MDO, and Appellant further requested that the court release him from
his commitment, if the underlying crime were reclassified as a misdemeanor. (§ 2962,
subd. (e) [underlying felony qualification for MDO treatment]; § 2972 [recommitment].)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless noted. Proposition 47
changed portions of this code and the Health and Safety Code, reducing or redesignating
various drug possession and theft-related offenses from felonies (or wobblers, § 17,
subd. (b)) to misdemeanors, unless those offenses were committed by certain offenders
who are specified as ineligible for such reduction or redesignation. (People v. Rivera
(2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1091 (Rivera); § 1170.18, subd. (i); also see fn. 4 on
eligibility, post.)
2 An offender convicted of a specified felony related to a severe mental disorder,
who continues to pose a danger to society, qualifies for treatment under the MDO Act.
(People v. Harrison (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 1211, 1218 (Harrison) [in challenge to MDO Act
procedure, the court distinguished between its procedural requirements and its
substantive criteria]; § 2962, subd. (d)(1) [MDO criterion of risk of substantial danger of
physical harm to others].)
2
The trial court denied his motion and continued the civil commitment matter, and that
issue had not been resolved by the time the order on the motion was issued.
In the order denying the motion, the trial court found that Appellant, as a civilly
committed MDO who might continue to pose a substantial danger of physical harm to
others, was not statutorily eligible for redesignation. The court reasoned that Proposition
47 did not apply to a defendant during an MDO proceeding, but that even if it did,
Appellant would still not be free of the MDO law. The ruling states that the underlying
crime that caused the commitment was no longer an issue, because the standard for MDO
recommitment involved his dangerousness.
Appellant challenges the trial court's order denying his motion and claims he is
entitled to redesignation irrespective of his MDO status. He argues the terms of section
1170.18, subdivision (k) provide that the requested reclassification of his offense from a
felony to a misdemeanor would be "for all purposes" (excepting only firearm restrictions;
§ 29800 et seq.). (Alejandro N. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2015) 238
Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1223 (Alejandro).) Appellant argues his offense as redesignated
would have full retroactive effect that would conclusively undermine the validity of the
MDO status by removing his statutorily qualifying felony. (§ 2962, subd. (e)(1).)
Appellant relies on theories of statutory interpretation and equal protection, as they affect
the interaction of Proposition 47 with the MDO Act. (See, e.g. In re Moye (1978) 22
Cal. 3d 457, 465-466 [persons similarly situated must receive like treatment under law].)
In response, the People initially contend that even assuming that Proposition 47
provisions are equally applicable to MDO's, Appellant's motion papers did not satisfy his
3
burden of showing, as a factual matter, his entitlement to the requested reduction (i.e.,
that the stolen property did not exceed $950 in value). (§ 490.2, subd. (a) [redesignated
petty theft crime]; People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 875, 878-879 [allocating
burden of proof].) The People claim the trial court properly refused to give retroactive
effect to the section 1170.18 redesignation of the underlying crime, as it would relate to a
challenge at this late date to the original MDO proceedings, a consequence of the
conviction, since they are otherwise governed by section 2960 et seq. (But see
Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1227-1230 [a reclassified misdemeanor offense
under Proposition 47 cannot alone support a collateral order retaining DNA materials
collected in connection with the previous felony finding; §§ 296, 296.1].)
The People further argue the stated purposes of the Proposition 47 resentencing
statutory scheme, to reduce the prison population for nonviolent offenders, indicate it
should not apply to persons adjudicated as MDOs, since they are not mentioned in it, and
they may remain dangerous to members of the public. (See §§ 2962, subd. (d)(1), 2972,
subds. (c), (e) [MDO criteria include whether offender's disorder creates a substantial
danger of physical harm to others].) In section 1170.18, subdivision (c), Proposition 47
supplies an analogous foundational element for resentencing or redesignation, requiring a
factually-based consideration of potential "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety,"
4
as that term is "used throughout this [Penal] Code."3 (People v. Contreras (2015) 237
Cal. App. 4th 868, 892 (Contreras).)
We first inquire whether Appellant made an adequate showing of entitlement to
redesignation, within the statutory requirements. (§ 1170.18, subds. (f), (g).) We
interpret the terms of section 1170.18, subdivision (k) in this context as specifying
expansively that if the felony offense is redesignated, it shall be "considered a
misdemeanor for all purposes." (Ibid.) (See Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal. App. 4th 1209,
1222-1223 [purposes of Proposition 47].) We consider whether the trial court applied the
proper standard to evaluate "dangerousness" in its Proposition 47 ruling, in this context of
a moving party who is also an MDO, and who is facing recommitment.
We agree with Respondent that Appellant, although eligible to bring such a
motion, has not satisfied his burden of proof to show that he is factually entitled to
redesignation of the felony conviction to a misdemeanor. Further trial court proceedings
are warranted to give him the opportunity to provide such proof.4 On this record, the
3 Section 1170.18, subdivision (c) states: "As used throughout this [Penal] Code,
'unreasonable risk of danger to public safety' means an unreasonable risk that the
petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of [section 667,
subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv)]." (Italics added; see Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1222, fn. 4, designating the highly serious and/or violent felony offenses listed by
§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv) as "super strikes.")
4 Appellant is not facially unqualified for the requested redesignation under the
provisions of section 1170.18, subdivision (i), because his prior conviction was not
classified under that portion as a "super strike" (statutorily-specified highly serious or
violent offenses), and he was never required to register as a sex offender. Such other
identified offenders are deemed to have committed a felony, even if their drug- or theft-
5
implications of such a redesignation on the separate MDO proceedings cannot be
determined, with respect to whether Appellant should consequently be released from the
state mental hospital for lack of a statutorily qualifying MDO commitment. (§ 2972.)
Those related MDO issues are not now before us, and we consider only the motion
proceedings about redesignation. Based on a plain reading of the applicable Proposition
47 language, we reverse the order denying the motion with directions to allow Appellant
to again present a petition on the redesignation request.
I
BACKGROUND
The record shows Appellant was charged with robbery by force or fear in October
1998. (§ 211.) In December 1998, he pleaded guilty to the lesser included felony charge
of grand theft from the person of another (§ 487, subd. (c)). Although he was granted
probation, it was revoked in May 1999, and he was sentenced to three years in state
prison.
At the expiration of his prison term, Appellant was committed to a state hospital as
an MDO. (§ 2962.) The People have brought yearly petitions to extend the civil
commitment, and the record shows he remains under that commitment. (§§ 2970, 2972.)
When Proposition 47 became effective in November 2014, its provisions included
section 1170.18, subdivisions (a) through (n), establishing a recall/redesignation
procedure, and (inter alia) section 490.2, subdivision (a), providing that a previous felony
related offense would otherwise be classified as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.
(See Rivera, supra, 233 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1092.)
6
conviction in which stolen property did not exceed $950 in value may now be
redesignated as a misdemeanor.5
After Proposition 47 became effective, and while an annual People's
recommitment petition was pending, Appellant brought a motion under section 1170.18,
subdivision (f), to have his felony theft conviction designated a misdemeanor.6 In his
motion papers, he did not provide any details about the facts of the crime leading to his
underlying criminal conviction, such as any proof of the value of the property he stole.7
Opposition and reply papers were filed. There was no discussion in them about
whether Appellant had taken property of any particular value. Instead, the People
contended he was not eligible for the redesignation of his offense, on the grounds that
5 As relevant here, section 490.2 states in pertinent part that after Proposition 47,
"obtaining any property by theft where the value . . . does not exceed nine hundred fifty
dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor."
6 Section 1170.18, subdivision (f) states, "A person who has completed his or her
sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea, of a felony or felonies who would
have been guilty of a misdemeanor under this act had this act been in effect at the time of
the offense, may file an application" to have the conviction(s) designated as
misdemeanor(s). Section 1170.18, subdivision (g) states that if the application satisfies
the criteria in subdivision (f), "the court shall designate the felony offense" as a
misdemeanor.
7 In the briefs on appeal, Appellant's attorney provides a factual statement about the
underlying offense, but without citation to any portions of the record (saying that
Appellant stole a necklace from a person, then gave it back, and nobody knows how
much it was worth at the time). Our record contains a notification from the superior court
clerk that the 1998 reporters' transcripts designated as part of the record (Dec. 2 and
Dec. 31, 1998, the change of plea and sentencing hearings) have been routinely destroyed
and are no longer available. The minute orders from December 2 and December 31,
1998 are in the record, but no copy of the probation report from the 1998 through 2002
proceedings has been supplied. (See People v. Stevens (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 325 [discussing
use of probation report in connection with burden of proof in MDO proceedings].)
7
section 1170.18 was inapplicable to persons previously designated as MDOs. Appellant
replied that the prosecutor had impliedly conceded that his conviction was eligible for
redesignation, and that consequently, Appellant no longer met the requirements to be
civilly recommitted as an MDO.
At the January 27, 2015 hearing on the motion, the court and counsel discussed
whether Appellant was eligible for redesignation of his underlying felony, in light of his
current MDO status. They compared the discretionary sentencing provisions of section
17, subdivision (b) (wobblers) and inquired into Proposition 47's voters' intentions. The
court noted that the MDO commitment was civil in nature and not a sentence. However,
the court acknowledged that an underlying felony was required for the MDO status, and
that this was a hybrid type of proceeding. The prosecutor requested that the felony not be
reduced to a misdemeanor, but argued that even if that occurred, it still should not affect
the subsequent MDO commitment.
After taking the matter under submission, the court issued an order denying the
application for several different reasons. First, the court noted that section 1170.18 and
Proposition 47 did not expressly deal with the case of an MDO who has repeatedly been
found to have a treatable severe mental disorder that represented a substantial danger of
physical harm to others, within the meaning of the MDO laws.8 The purposes of
8 Under section 2962, subdivisions (a) through (e), a person is subject to the MDO
Act if he or she has a severe mental disorder and meets numerous statutory criteria, which
include receipt of a determinate sentence for an offense that is specified in section 2962,
subdivision (e)(2)(A) through (O), or that was a felony offense involving behavior
described in its subdivision (e)(2)(P) or (Q). As relevant here, section 2962,
8
Proposition 47 did not evidently include the release of dangerous individuals or the
evisceration of protections for the public, as those are set out in the MDO laws. The
court said the money saving aspects of Proposition 47 applied to prisoners, while the
MDO commitment was a hybrid setting with elements of civil proceedings but criminal
due process rights. The court concluded that Proposition 47 did not apply to a defendant
during an MDO proceeding, but that even if it did, Appellant would still not be free of the
MDO law. The underlying crime that caused the commitment was deemed no longer to
be an issue, because the standard for recommitment involved his dangerousness. (§ 2972,
subds. (c), (e).) Finally, the court found no equal protection violations from any
prospective application of changes to various sentencing or hybrid civil commitments. In
conjunction with the MDO proceedings, the request for reduction (redesignation) of the
underlying crime was denied.
Appellant timely appealed the order denying his motion, after his petition for relief
in mandamus was denied without prejudice. (Zavala v. Superior Court [den. Feb. 17,
2015] D067466.) The record shows the recommitment hearing remained on calendar for
further proceedings.
subdivision (e)(2)(Q) specifies criminal behavior that will qualify a defendant for MDO
status as events in which he "expressly or impliedly threatened another with the use of
force or violence likely to produce substantial physical harm in such a manner that a
reasonable person would believe and expect that the force or violence would be used."
9
II
RULES OF REVIEW; ISSUES PRESENTED
Both parties seek de novo review of the statutory requirements as applied to this
record. In Rivera, supra, 233 Cal. App. 4th 1085, the court set out these well-accepted
rules of statutory construction for interpreting a voter initiative like Proposition 47.
" ' "The fundamental purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the
lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. [Citations.]" ' [Citation.] In the
case of a provision adopted by the voters, 'their intent governs.' [Citation.] [¶] 'In
determining such intent, we begin with the language of the statute itself.' [Citation.] We
look first to the words the voters used, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning.
' "If there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute, 'then . . . the plain meaning of the
language governs.' " [Citation.] "But when the statutory language is ambiguous, 'the
court may examine the context in which the language appears, adopting the construction
that best harmonizes the statute internally and with related statutes.' " [Citation.] [¶] In
construing a statute, we must also consider " 'the object to be achieved and the evil to be
prevented by the legislation." ' " (Id. at pp. 1099-1100.)
Generally, whether a statute should operate prospectively or retroactively is
determined by ascertaining legislative intent. (People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 314,
319.) Appellant argues his redesignation motion should have been ruled upon using a
statutory construction " ' "more favorable to the offender . . . ." ' " (People v. Rizo (2000)
22 Cal. 4th 681, 685-686.) He cites to a rule of limited retroactivity, providing that if
legislative action is taken to reduce a lesser punishment for a given crime, the reduced
10
punishment may be imposed for crimes committed before the act's passage, so long as it
is constitutionally appropriate. (In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal. 2d 740, 742-748; People v.
Brown, supra, 54 Ca1.4th at pp. 323-324; 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed.
2012) Introduction to Crimes, § 48, p. 87.)
Where, as here, multiple statutory schemes become relevant, "we evaluate each
scheme and seek to harmonize them to carry out their evinced intent." (Alejandro, supra,
238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1224.) Proposition 47 contains section 1170.18, subdivision (n),
providing that: "Nothing in this and related sections is intended to diminish or abrogate
the finality of judgments in any case not falling within the purview of this act." The
People point out that MDO proceedings represent a progressive scheme in which annual
evaluations are required for recommitments, and that a recommitment is in the nature of a
civil judgment. (§ 2972; Lopez v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal. 4th 1055, 1061-1063
(Lopez) [different showings required for initial commitments and recommitments].)9
The People thus argue the MDO recommitment order, based in part on earlier,
essential findings (e.g., an underlying felony), should be treated differently for purposes
of a motion involving Proposition 47 retroactivity analysis. In their respondent's brief,
the People state that they do not contest "that offenders who otherwise meet the statutory
criteria to have their felonies designated [as] misdemeanors, and who are civilly
committed as MDO's, are entitled to have the conviction so designated. [R]espondent
9 In Lopez, supra, 50 Cal. 4th 1055, 1063-1064, the Supreme Court explains that
there are two types of MDO criteria, those which are "static" as of the initial commitment
date, and those that are "dynamic," to be realleged and proven yearly for recommitments
under section 2972.
11
challenges only the retroactive effect of Penal Code section 1170.18 re-designation."
(But see People v. Crivello (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 612, 617 ["if a defendant cannot be
committed under section 2962, based on a failure of proof of the static criteria, he cannot
later be recommitted under section 2970"].) Given this framework for statutory
construction, we examine the validity of the order denying Appellant's redesignation
motion.
III
RETROACTIVITY OF PROPOSITION 47 REDESIGNATIONS
In Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal. App. 4th 1209, this court initially considered the
applicability of Proposition 47 standards (located in the Penal Code), to juvenile
delinquency proceedings (conducted under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602). We held that
Proposition 47's reclassification provisions apply to juveniles who committed offenses,
since the relevant penal provisions have been incorporated into those proceedings:
"Section 1170.18's use of terms associated with adult criminal proceedings logically
comports with the fact that the Penal Code and other codes defining crimes define the
offenses primarily for use in the adult context, and that these substantive criminal offense
provisions are then engrafted onto the juvenile proceedings in wholesale fashion by
means of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602." (Alejandro, supra, at p. 1224.)
Most relevant to the issues here was our discussion in Alejandro of section
1170.18, subdivision (k), and its retroactivity language, providing that a reclassified
offense is a misdemeanor "for all purposes" (except with respect to the designated firearm
restrictions). We declined to create a nontextual exception to the statute's retroactivity
12
language, with regard to expungement of DNA records under section 299, once a
predicate or qualifying felony offense has been redesignated to a misdemeanor.
(Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1227-1228.) We acknowledged that the voters
are presumed to have known of existing statutory provisions related to the distinction
between felonies and misdemeanors.10 We discussed retroactivity principles and on a
plain language basis, interpreted section 1170.18, subdivision (k) to mean that
Proposition 47 provisions are retroactive in that DNA retention context. (Alejandro,
supra, at pp. 1227-1230.) Since section 1170.18, subdivision (k) explicitly addressed
which exceptions should be afforded to the otherwise all-encompassing misdemeanor
treatment of a qualifying offense, we noted that the courts should not carve out other
exceptions to that treatment, "absent some reasoned statutory or constitutional basis for
doing so." (Alejandro, supra, at p. 1227 & fn. 8, which cites Rivera, supra, 233
Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1093-1097 [determination of appellate jurisdiction properly based on
offense as charged and convicted, not as reduced].)
In Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal. App. 4th 1209, we directed the superior court to
expunge Alejandro's DNA "unless there is another basis to retain it apart from his mere
commission of the reclassified misdemeanor offense." (Id. at p. 1217.) We reasoned,
"Based on the broad mandate set forth in section 1170.18, subdivision (k) to treat
reclassified offenses as misdemeanors for all purposes except for firearm restrictions, as
10 "An enacting body is deemed to be aware of existing laws at the time legislation is
enacted and to have enacted or amended a statute in light thereof; this principle applies as
well to legislation enacted by voter initiative." (Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1225; People v. Superior Court (Cervantes) (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 1007, 1015.)
13
well as the extension of an expansive retroactive remedy under section 1170.18, we
conclude the voters did not intend that a reclassified misdemeanor offense be deemed a
felony for purposes of retention of DNA samples." (Id. at p. 1228, italics added.) This
was a broad, expansive directive and there was no other applicable statutory exception to
retroactivity. (Id. at p. 1229.)
In Alejandro, we also noted, "Section 1170.18 does not address matters collateral
to the substantive offenses that are incorporated into juvenile proceedings under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 602, but rather involves the very definition of the offenses
themselves—i.e., permitting their characterization as misdemeanors rather than felonies
and allowing resentencing in accordance with the misdemeanor classification."
(Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1224; italics omitted & added.) Such collateral
matters included, for example, applicable enhancements or registration requirements. (Id.
at pp. 1220-1224.) However, in Alejandro, the status of the underlying felony offense
was squarely presented to the trial court through the reclassification request, and this
required the application of the statutory standards set forth in Proposition 47, on a
retroactive basis. (Id. at pp. 1227-1230.)
IV
PROOF OF ENTITLEMENT TO PROPOSITION 47 REDESIGNATION
A. Eligibility to Seek Relief; MDO Issues Not Ripe for Decision
A trial court's decision on a section 1170.18 petition requires a factual analysis of
whether the defendant meets the statutory criteria for relief. (Contreras, supra, 237
Cal. App. 4th 868, 892.) The statute initially sets forth a procedure for requests under
14
section 1170.18, subdivisions (a) and (b), by an offender of a specified type of crime, and
who is currently serving a sentence (assuming the offender has no disqualifying "super
strikes" and is not required to register as a sex offender; see Alejandro, supra, 238
Cal.App.4th at p. 1226.) In that type of case, the trial court's decision requires an
additional analysis identified by section 1170.19, subdivision (c), on whether the
petitioner meets the statutory criteria for relief, that he or she does not pose an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (See id. at p. 1226; § 1170.18, subds. (b),
(c) [defining "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" by reference to section 667,
subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv); see footnote 3, ante].) For a resentencing case, this is an
important factual question that must be decided by the trial court " 'in its discretion,' " i.e.,
"whether 'resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public
safety,' " pursuant to sections 1170.18, subdivisions (b) and (c). (Contreras, supra, at p.
892.)
Appellant was not seeking an initial recall and resentencing, but was making a
redesignation request pursuant to Proposition 47's section 1170.18, subdivisions (f) and
(g), after his sentence had been completed. He argues in his reply brief, "The only issue
[on the motion] that should have been considered is whether the value of the property
taken by Mr. Zavala was over $950." He also claims that the People have effectively
waived or forfeited any objections to his very minimal showing about his factual
entitlement to the redesignation as requested. We do not accept his claim of waiver of
15
objections, and will address the sufficiency of his showing in light of de novo
interpretation of the statutory requirements.11
In response to the appeal, the People argue that even if the reclassification request
should have been granted, it should not have retroactive effect, because "[n]othing in the
language of section 1170.18, subdivision (k), overrides any part of the MDO Act." They
contend the MDO status is dependent on the continued existence of the earlier felony
conviction, and they object to any retroactive effectiveness of section 1170.18,
subdivision (k), to "undo" the underlying felony, as follows: "The statute provides for
retroactive eligibility for section 1170.18 re-designation in the sense that an offender
whose judgment is final can still have his felony designated a misdemeanor, but it makes
no provision at all for retroactive effect of that re-designation." They argue for a
Proposition 47 interpretation that would leave Appellant's earlier felony conviction intact,
for MDO purposes. (See Rivera, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1100 [reduction to
misdemeanor not retroactive for purposes of appellate jurisdiction requirements].) They
cite to section 2962, which sets a one-year deadline to contest MDO certification for
treatment, to argue the time has passed for any challenge to Appellant's initial MDO
11 In the opening brief, Appellant admits that an argument adverse to him could be
raised, that section 1170.18, subdivision (k) is not broad enough to provide retroactive
effect applicable to his postconviction situation (since it refers to "resentencing,"
regarding the firearms restrictions). However, such an admission does not make any
difference here, since section 1170.18, subdivision (k) also states that a redesignated
offense under its subdivision (g) shall "be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes"
(except for the firearms restrictions).
16
commitment. (See People v. J.S. (2014) 229 Cal. App. 4th 163, 174 [propriety of an initial
commitment may affect the validity of subsequent recommitments].)
The purpose of the MDO Act is to protect the public while treating severely
mentally ill offenders. (Harrison, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1218.) For commitment or
recommitment, the MDO Act in section 2962, subdivision (e)(1) requires a showing that
the offender had received a determinate sentence for a felony, and the underlying crime
was one of the enumerated crimes in section 2962, subdivision (e)(2), serious and/or
violent felonies. Further, section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(Q) includes a catchall
provision for any felony "in which the perpetrator expressly or impliedly threatened
another with the use of force or violence likely to produce a substantial physical harm in
such a manner that a reasonable person would believe and expect that the force or
violence would be used." (Ibid.)
In Appellant's case, because there were two petitions pending at the time of the
hearing, the trial court had remaining concerns about whether his release from civil
commitment might pose a risk of physical harm to others, based on the MDO standards.
(§ 2972, subds. (c), (e).) However, there is nothing in the MDO Act specifically
obviating the Proposition 47 broad directives, or preventing Appellant from separately
pursuing a variety of the Proposition 47 remedies created by section 1170.18. We are
limited to conducting a plain reading of the expansive Proposition 47 language on
retroactivity, "for all purposes," and it indicates that Appellant cannot be disqualified
from pursuing a statutory remedy, simply because of his current MDO status.
(§ 1170.18, subd. (k).)
17
We do not have before us the question of whether an MDO recommitment may
survive a Proposition 47 reclassification order that operates to remove its foundational
element, a felony, since Appellant has not yet achieved reclassification and his
recommitment order is not now on appeal. At this time, we decide only that Appellant is
not excluded from the category of persons who may seek relief under Proposition 47,
solely by reason of his status as an MDO who is subject to civil commitment and
potential recommitment. The remaining question is whether his application was
substantively meritorious.
B. Scope of Trial Court's Inquiry Under Section 1170.18; Facts
Here, as in Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal. App. 4th 1209, the substantive nature of
Appellant's underlying commitment offense was squarely presented to the trial court, for
purposes of redesignation. The court's ruling denied the request, determining Appellant,
an MDO, was not eligible to present it. We have determined that was error and that the
court should have analyzed whether Appellant had established his case for such
resentencing. He first had to show that his previous felony conviction would have been
equivalent to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, if it had been in effect at the time of
the offense. This requires a factual inquiry under section 490.2, which provides that if
Appellant had obtained the property by theft, and it was valued at $950 or less, the
offense would be considered petty theft and punished as a misdemeanor.
In Sherow, supra, 239 Cal. App. 4th 875, this court noted that Proposition 47 does
not explicitly allocate a burden of proof. We relied on the ordinary proposition that
" ' "[a] party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of
18
which is essential to the claim for relief or defense he is asserting." ' " (Sherow, supra, at
p. 879.) We stated, "it is entirely appropriate to allocate the initial burden of proof to the
petitioner to establish the facts, upon which his or her eligibility is based." (Id. at p. 880.)
As previously noted, the 1998 records of Appellant's change of plea and
sentencing proceedings are available only as minute orders, as the reporters' transcripts
have not been retained pursuant to statutory standards, due to lapse of time. Appellant
was originally charged with robbery by force or fear (§ 211), but he entered a guilty plea
to the lesser included felony charge of grand theft from the person of another (§ 487,
subd. (c)). The minute orders do not provide any details of how the theft took place.
In his reply brief, without citations to the record, Appellant represents that the
facts were that he "grabbed a necklace from a young man's neck and ran away. The
young man wasn't injured and the property was returned. At the preliminary hearing, the
young man and his female companion testified under oath that they did not know the
value of the necklace. More importantly, they testified that Mr. Zavala returned the
necklace to the victim at the time of the incident." Appellant then argues that there were
implied findings by the trial court that he was eligible to have his conviction designated
as a misdemeanor, but for his MDO status, because the value was probably under $950
and the item was apparently returned at the time of the incident.
The People take the position that Appellant did not carry the applicable burden of
proof that he qualified for resentencing. The trial court had to make a determination
under the new petty theft statute that the value of the property taken did not exceed $950.
(§ 490.2.) Here, as in Sherow, supra, 239 Cal. App. 4th 875, to impose this burden on
19
Appellant "would not be unfair or unreasonable. He knows what kind of items he
took . . . ." (Id. at p. 880.) "A proper petition could certainly contain at least [the
offender's] testimony about the nature of the items taken. If he made the initial showing
the court can take such action as appropriate to grant the petition or permit further factual
determination." (Ibid., citing People v. Bradford (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 1322, 1341.)
As in Alejandro, supra, 238 Cal. App. 4th 1209, we focus on the substantive nature
of the offense, rather than the collateral consequences of it. (Id. at p. 1224.) At this
juncture, we cannot accept the factual representations in the reply brief as proof. "An
' "essential distinction" ' between trial courts and appellate courts is that ' "it is the
province of the trial court to decide questions of fact and of the appellate court to decide
questions of law . . . . " ' [Citation.] Appellate courts do not make factual findings; we
review ' "the correctness of a judgment [or order] as of the time of its rendition." ' "
(Contreras, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 892.)
This record is incomplete on value. (§ 490.2.) Appellant is entitled to a hearing
on his redesignation motion utilizing the proper legal standard, and with an expanded
factual showing, if available. (See People v. J.S., supra, 229 Cal. App. 4th 163, 173-174
[if initial commitment defective, recommitment may also fail].)
20
DISPOSITION
The order denying Appellant's redesignation motion is reversed with directions to
allow Appellant to again present a petition for redesignation of the offense.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
PRAGER, J.*
* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
21