AB 1950 and case law provide benefits to probationers

Under prior California law, misdemeanor criminal defendants could be lawfully placed on probation by a sentencing court for up to three years. This was known as informal, or summary, probation. Formal probation, on the other hand, applied to felony criminal defendants placed on probation and could technically extend up to the maximum confinement time in state prison for the relevant felony offense. In practice, however, terms of felony probation usually lasted between three and five years. For most low-level felonies, a typical probationary term was five years.

Assembly Bill 1950 dramatically changes these time periods. For misdemeanors, the maximum probation term is now one year. For felonies, the maximum probation term is two years. Several limited exceptions apply. For violent and serious felonies (usually those offenses which fall under the provisions of California's three-strikes law), probation can continue to be imposed for a period no exceeding the maximum possible confinement time for the underlying offense. A small set of felony offenses in the Penal Code also contain specific probationary periods in their provisions. These time periods will also continue to apply notwithstanding the two-year limitation. Finally, certain financial crimes with loss amounts over $25,000 may be subject to a three-year limit rather than the general two-year limit on grants of formal probation. Nevertheless, even with these limited exceptions, AB 1950 is expected to provide substantial benefits to most probationers and in particular to felony probationers.

Several appellate cases which have been decided since the enactment of the new law confirm that these changes to probation time limits are retroactive. The first court to consider the issue was the Los Angeles County Superior Court's Appellate Department in the case of People v. Burton. Burton was found guilty after a jury trial of violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code relating to safety of a building he controlled as a beneficiary of an owner's trust. After being found guilty, the trial court placed Burton on 36 months' summary probation with various conditions. Burton appealed based on his belief that one of these conditions was a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.

While the appeal was pending, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1950, reducing the maximum possible probation term for a misdemeanor conviction to one year. Burton alleged that this change in the law retroactively entitled him to relief. This contention implicated the Estrada doctrine. Under Estrada, when the Legislature amends a criminal statute to reduce the punishment for an offense, courts will presume that the change applies retroactively to all cases in which judgment is not final. Judgment is typically found to be final once a sentence is complete or all available opportunities for appeal have been exhausted, either because appeals have been filed and rejected or because relevant time periods have expired.

The issue in Burton's case was whether summary probation qualified as "punishment." The court concluded that it did, and accordingly applied the rule of Estrada to order Burton's 36-month probation to be vacated. The appellate department remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to impose no more than 12 months of probation based on AB 1950.

Following Burton, the 1st District Court of Appeal considered the retroactive application of AB 1950 in a felony case. In People v. Quinn, 2021 DJDAR 429 (Jan. 11, 2021), the defendant was placed on three years of formal probation following her conviction for attempting to transport marijuana across state lines. Quinn challenged not only the three-year time period but several other conditions of her probation which are not relevant here.

Noting the holding in Burton, the Quinn court conducted its own Estrada retroactivity analysis and likewise concluded that the felony probation amendments apply retroactively to probationers whose cases are not yet final. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, arguing for the government, suggested that probationers sentenced to more than two years of formal probation should have to separately petition the court pursuant to the Penal Code Section 1203.3 for early termination of probation rather than automatically receive a reduction in their probation terms. At least as applied to those whose cases have not reached final judgment, however, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Court of Appeal directly ordered that Quinn's probation be reduced to two years based on the change in law enacted in AB 1950.

Whether AB 1950 applies, and how it applies, to a given case requires a case-by-case analysis of the law and facts in each particular circumstances. If you, or someone you know, is on probation or is considering accepting a probationary offer in a criminal case, contact our experienced team of criminal defense attorneys for an initial consultation. 