Perez

DISCUSSION

There is no dispute that defendant’s felony drug offense, committed in 2012, was properly reduced to a misdemeanor, and no dispute that defendant timely moved for

The People assert--and defendant concurs--that defendant’s conviction became final upon issuance of the remittitur. The People then argue defendant’s conviction was final at that moment within the meaning of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740. We agree that the conviction became final for some purposes at that moment (see, e.g., 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Appeal, § 196, p. 481), but as we held long ago, “finality” can mean different things. For retroactivity purposes, a conviction does not become final until the time in which to petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court has passed. (In re Pine (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 593, 594-596 & fn. 2 [“The confusion as to what constitutes a ‘final judgment’ within the meaning of the principles announced in (Estrada), results from the multiple use of that term”].) The People do not explain how defendant’s abandonment of his appeal rendered his conviction final for retroactivity purposes immediately upon issuance of the…