People v. Prudholme
| Citation | 14 Cal.5th 961,531 P.3d 341,309 Cal.Rptr.3d 814 |
| Docket Number | S271057 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 2023 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ricky PRUDHOLME, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
14 Cal.5th 961
531 P.3d 341
309 Cal.Rptr.3d 814
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Ricky PRUDHOLME, Defendant and Appellant.
S271057
Supreme Court of California.
June 26, 2023
Erica Gambale, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Steve Oetting and Elizabeth M. Kuchar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J.
Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1950) became effective on January 1, 2021 and reduced the maximum length of probation for most felonies to two years. (See Pen. Code, § 1203.1, as amended by Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2.) We must decide whether this provision applies retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal and, if so, the proper remedy for applying the new law to an existing plea agreement that provided for a longer probationary term. We hold Assembly Bill 1950 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases and the proper remedy is to modify the probationary term to conform with the new law while maintaining the remainder of the plea agreement. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reduce the length of probation from three years to two and otherwise affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
In November 2018, defendant Ricky Prudholme and two others were seen loading items from a commercial loading dock into two pickup trucks. As they began to drive off, employees of the business blocked the way. Defendant tried to evade them but hit an obstruction. He got out of his truck and began yelling at the employees, claiming he injured his back and threatening to sue them. Police arrested defendant and his cohorts. The trio had loaded their trucks with over $4,100 worth of electronic equipment, which was
recovered. All three were originally charged together with one count of second degree robbery.1 The codefendants are not part of this appeal.
Proceedings were suspended for a time because defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant's competence.2 The court found him competent several months later and reinstated proceedings. The record reflects that defendant was 58 years old at the time of the crime. His only prior offense was a misdemeanor vandalism conviction in 2000. The maximum exposure for a second degree robbery is five years in state prison.3 Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the robbery charge was dismissed and defendant pled to second degree burglary,
a wobbler punishable by a prison term of 16, 24, or 36 months, or up to one year in the county jail.4 The maximum available probationary term was five years. The parties agreed to three years of probation. Conditions required defendant to serve a year in the county jail, which he had already completed; submit to a search of his person and residence; stay away from the victim business; and otherwise obey all laws. Defendant filed a notice of appeal, the bases of which were not set out in the notice.
While that appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1950. (See Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2, amending Pen. Code, § 1203.1.) Defendant argued the new law applied to him retroactively and required his probation term be reduced to two years but that the remainder of the plea agreement should remain in place. The Court of Appeal agreed the probation limit applied to defendant retroactively but that People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 769, 467 P.3d 168 ( Stamps ) required the case be remanded to the trial court to "permit the People and trial court an opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement." ( People v. Prudholme (Aug. 26, 2021, E076007, 2021 WL 3781712 ) [nonpub. opn.].) We granted defendant's petition for review.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Probation and Assembly Bill 1950
Following a conviction, the court may release certain offenders on probation.
"Probation is generally reserved for convicted criminals whose conditional release into society poses minimal risk to public safety and promotes
rehabilitation." ( People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681, 899 P.2d 67.) A grant of probation is "qualitatively different from such traditional forms of punishment as fines or imprisonment. Probation is neither ‘punishment’ (see [Pen. Code,] § 15 )[5 ] nor a criminal ‘judgment’ (see [Pen. Code,] § 1445 ). Instead, courts deem probation an act of clemency in lieu of punishment [citation], and its primary purpose is rehabilitative in nature [citation]." ( People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1092, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 946 P.2d 828.)
The Legislature has declared "that the provision of probation services is an essential element in the administration of criminal justice." ( Pen. Code,6 § 1202.7.) A primary goal of probation is to ensure the safety of the public through the enforcement of court-ordered conditions. A number of factors bear on a decision to grant probation. The sentencing court considers the nature of the offense; the needs of the defendant; the loss to the victim; and the interests of justice, which include punishment, reintegration of the offender into the community, and enforcement of probation conditions. (See ibid .; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.414.) "If the court determines that there are circumstances in mitigation of the punishment prescribed by law or that the ends of
justice would be served," it may place the defendant on probation. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(3).) A court may impose probationary conditions it determines "fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer ...." ( § 1203.1, subd. (j).) "Although the Legislature has directed in some circumstances that probation be unavailable or limited, in most circumstances the trial court has broad discretion to choose probation when sentencing a criminal offender." ( People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 402, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 491, 376 P.3d 617, fns. omitted; see § 1203, subds. (e), (k).)
Before Assembly Bill 1950 amended section 1203.1, a "court could impose felony probation for a period ‘not exceeding the maximum possible term of the sentence,’ except ‘where the maximum possible term of the sentence [was] five years or less,’ in which case probation could [not] ‘continue for ... over five years.’ " (
People v. Forester (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 447, 451, 293 Cal.Rptr.3d 728, quoting former § 1203.1, subd. (a).)7 The new two-year probation limit of Assembly Bill 1950 does not apply to violent felonies defined in section 667.5, subdivision (c), offenses which include "specific probation lengths within its provisions," or to certain theft or financial crimes exceeding a loss of $25,000. ( § 1203.1, subd. (l )(1) & (2).)8 None of these exceptions apply here.
According to the bill's author, the reduction of the maximum probation term for most offenses was based on research showing "that probation services, such as mental health care and addiction treatment, are most effective during the first 18 months of supervision" and "that providing increased supervision and services earlier reduces an individual's likelihood" to reoffend. (Sen. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg Sess.) as
amended June 10, 2020, p. 4.) Additional research cited by bill proponents suggested " ‘that the maximum time needed to engage probationers in behavior change and reduce the likelihood of reoffending is no more than two years, while also creating incentives for individuals to engage in treatment and services early on.’ " (Id . at p. 5.) The bill's author urged that it "creates reasonable and evidence-based limits on probation terms, while lowering costs to taxpayers, allowing for the possible investment of savings in effective measures proven to reduce recidivism and increasing public safety for all Californians. The bill also supports probation officers in completing the duties of their job more effectively, by making their caseloads more manageable." (Id . at p. 4.) A report of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety also noted that "[i]f the fact that an individual is on probation can increase the likelihood that they will be taken back into custody for a probation violation that does not necessarily involve new criminal conduct, then shortening the period of supervision is a potential avenue to decrease individuals’...
To continue reading
Request your trial