People v. Quinn

• Decision Date: 11 January 2021
• Docket Number: A156932
• Citation: 59 Cal.App.5th 874,273 Cal.Rptr.3d 770
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Moriah Noel QUINN, Defendant and Appellant.

59 Cal.App.5th 874

273 Cal.Rptr.3d 770

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Moriah Noel QUINN, Defendant and Appellant.

A156932

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

Filed January 11, 2021

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing February 5, 2021

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

Counsel for plaintiff and appellant: Jonathan D. Roberts, San Francisco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal.

Counsel for defendant and respondent: Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine A. Rivlin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Basil R. Williams, Deputy Attorney General.

POLLAK, P. J.

Following her conviction for attempting to transport marijuana across state lines, defendant Moriah Noel Quinn was placed on supervised probation with the condition, among others, that she abstain from the use and possession of controlled substances, including marijuana. On appeal, defendant contends the condition prohibiting the use or possession of marijuana is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545 ( Lent ) and that the restriction on her use or possession of "controlled substances" is overbroad. Defendant also challenges a $300 restitution fine and contends that the term of her probation must be reduced from three years to two years pursuant to recently enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.). We conclude that the prohibition on defendant's use and possession of marijuana is amply justified by her current conviction and criminal history but agree that the restriction on her use or possession of "controlled substances" is overbroad and must be modified to permit the use and possession of legally prescribed medications. We also agree that the restitution fine must be stricken and the term of defendant's probation reduced to two years under the recent statutory amendment.

Background

Defendant was convicted by a jury of felony attempted interstate transportation of marijuana in violation of Health & Safety Code, section 11360, subdivision (a)(3). At trial, security-screening officers at San Francisco International Airport testified that they found over 13 pounds of marijuana in luggage belonging to defendant and her mother. After her arrest, defendant admitted that she did not pack her suitcase and was paid to transport the bag containing marijuana from San Francisco to New York. She also admitted that she had previously flown with marijuana in her luggage on at least two other occasions. Defendant was placed on supervised probation for a period of three years.

Discussion

1.–3.^**

4. The term of probation must be reduced .

Assembly Bill No. 1950, signed by the Governor on September 30, 2020, and effective on January 1, 2021 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2), reduces felony probation terms to two years, with certain exceptions, by modifying Penal Code section 1203.1. When defendant was sentenced, Penal Code section 1203.1 authorized felony probation "for a period of time not exceeding the maximum possible term of the sentence" but where the "maximum possible term of the sentence is five years or less, then the period of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence may, in the discretion of the court, continue for not over five years." (Stats. 2010, ch. 178, § 75.)Effective January 1, 2021, Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a) reads: "The court, or judge thereof, in the order granting probation, may suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct that the suspension may continue for a period of time not exceeding two years, and upon those terms and conditions as it shall determine...."²

The legislative history reflects that the Legislature's concern was that lengthy probationary periods do not serve a rehabilitative function and unfairly lead to reincarceration for technical violations. The author's statement with respect to the bill provides: "California's adult supervised probation population is around 548,000 – the largest of any state in the nation, more than twice the size of the state's prison population, almost four times larger than its jail population and about six times larger than its parole population. [¶] A 2018 Justice Center of the Council of State Governments study [citation] found that a large portion of people violate probation and end up incarcerated as a result. The study revealed that 20 percent of prison admissions in California are the result of supervised probation violations, accounting for the estimated $2 billion spent annually by the state to incarcerate people for supervision violations. Eight percent of people incarcerated in a California prison are behind bars for supervised probation violations. Most violations are ‘technical’ and minor in nature, such as missing a drug rehab appointment or socializing with a friend who has a criminal record. [¶] Probation – originally meant to reduce recidivism - has instead become a pipeline for re-entry into the carceral system. [¶] Research [citation] by the California Budget & Policy Center shows that probation services, such as mental healthcare and addiction treatment, are most effective during the first 18 months of supervision. Research also indicates that providing increased supervision and services earlier reduces an individual's likelihood to recidivate. A shorter term of probation, allowing for an increased emphasis on services, should lead to improved outcomes for both people on misdemeanor and felony probation while reducing the number of people on probation returning to incarceration." (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 6, 2020, pp. 3-4.) The analysis concludes that a two-year period of supervision is sufficient to fulfill the rehabilitative function of probation. (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 6, 2020, p. 6.)³ Subsequent analysis also cites research by the Prison Policy Institute finding that "like incarceration, probation affects already marginalized populations in troubling ways. Black Americans make up 13% of the U.S. adult population, but 30% of those under community supervision" and cites additional " ‘research that suggests 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.’ " (Sen. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 10, 2020, pp. 4-5.)

Defendant contends that the amendment should be applied retroactively to reduce her period of probation from three years to two. In People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 627-628, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 292, 466 P.3d 844, the California Supreme Court recently summarized the relevant law: "Generally, statutes are presumed to apply only prospectively. [Citation.] However, this presumption is a canon of statutory interpretation rather than a constitutional mandate. [Citation.] Accordingly, ‘the Legislature can ordinarily enact laws that apply retroactively, either explicitly or by implication.’ [Citation.] Courts look to the Legislature's intent in order to determine if a law is meant to apply retroactively. [Citation.] [¶] In [ In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948 ( Estrada )], we held that amendatory statutes that lessen the punishment for criminal conduct are ordinarily intended to apply retroactively. [Citation.] In endeavoring to ascertain the legislative intent in enacting such a statute, we found ‘one consideration of paramount importance.’ [Citation.] We explained: ‘When the Legislature amends a statute so as to lessen the punishment it has obviously expressly determined that its former penalty was too severe and that a lighter punishment is proper as punishment for the commission of the prohibited act. It is an inevitable inference that the Legislature must have intended that the new statute imposing the new lighter penalty now deemed to be sufficient should apply to every case to which it constitutionally could apply. The amendatory act imposing the lighter punishment can be applied constitutionally to acts committed before its passage provided the judgment convicting the defendant of the act is not final. This intent seems obvious, because to hold otherwise would be to conclude that the Legislature was motivated by a desire for vengeance, a conclusion not permitted in view of modern theories of penology.’ [Citation.] [¶] We reasoned that ‘ "[a] legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law. Nothing is to be gained by imposing the more severe penalty after such a pronouncement; the excess in punishment can, by hypothesis, serve no purpose other than to satisfy a desire for vengeance. As to a mitigation of penalties, then, it is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts." ’ [Citations.] [¶] ‘ Estrada stands for the proposition that, "where the amendatory statute mitigates punishment and there is no saving[s] clause, the rule is that the amendment will operate retroactively so that the lighter punishment is imposed." ’ [Citations.] If there is no express savings clause, the statute must demonstrate contrary indications of legislative intent ‘ "with sufficient clarity" ’ in order to rebut the Estrada rule."

The Attorney General argues that Assembly Bill No. 1950 is not subject to the Estrada presumption of retroactivity because probation is not a form of criminal punishment. The Attorney General acknowledges that the...