This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

People v. Millan

Ruling by

Cynthia G. Aaron

Lower Court

San Diego County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Steven E. Stone

Statutory amendment eliminating certain statutes as bases for sentence enhancement must be applied to benefit defendant sentenced with such enhancements whose case was not yet final when amendments enacted.





Court

California Courts of Appeal 4DCA/1

Published

Feb. 14, 2018

Filing Date

Feb. 13, 2018

Opinion Type

Opinion On Rehearing

Disposition Type

Reversed and Remanded

Summary

Oscar Millan pled guilty to one count of transporting methamphetamine, in violation of Health and Safety Code Section 11379(a), and admitted having suffered four prior drug-related convictions under Sections 11379 and 11378. Based on the latter, and pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11370.2(c), the trial court imposed two three-year enhancements. On appeal, Millan originally contended the trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress. This court affirmed that ruling but granted rehearing as to whether a recent change in law required a remand so that the Section 11370.2(c) enhancements could be stricken.

Reversed in part and remanded. Formerly, Section 11370.2(c) provided that any person convicted of violating Section 11379 "shall receive...full, separate, and consecutive three-year term[s] for each prior conviction of," among others, Sections 11378 and 11379. Senate Bill 180, effective January 1, 2018, removed several of the prior convictions from the list of prior convictions that qualify a defendant for Section 11370.2(c) enhancements. Both Sections 11379 and 11378 were removed from the list. Meanwhile, In re Estrada, recently held that "when a Legislature amends a statute...to lessen the punishment it has obviously expressly determined that its former penalty was too severe," and that "lighter punishment can be applied constitutionally to acts committed before its passage provided the judgment convicting the defendant of the act is not final." Thus, because Millan's case was not final when the amendments here were enacted, he is entitled to their benefit. This court ordered the lower court to strike the two Section 11370.2(c) enhancements it applied. Partial publication.

— Brian Cardile


#270806

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424