People v. Aguirre CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 2015C077310California981 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

The Penal Code presumes the prospective effect of any provision added to it unless a manifest intent to the contrary appears in extrinsic indicia. (People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 319 (Brown).) However, In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 established the principle that a reduction in punishment yields an “inevitable” intrinsic inference of retroactive application to all cases not yet final on appeal absent some form

3 We will assume in this context that we must accept the plain language of the statute as applying to section 1170.126. We reserve the issue of whether we must do this for the few cases remaining in which section 1170.18 could have been given prospective effect before the limitations period for section 1170.126 petitions expired. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b) [Nov. 7, 2014, except for good cause].)

3 of “saving clause” from which a court can find an intent for prospective application. (Id. at pp. 744-745, 747-748.)

Nonetheless, the Estrada principle applies only where there is the reduction of a particular punishment for a particular crime. (Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 324-325.) As a result, the increase in conduct credits at issue in Brown, which was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.