Hatt

People v. Hatt

Good Law
20 Cal. App. 5th 321·228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 20182d Crim. No. B283463California2,675 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Tangeman, J.

*323 In November 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47 to "reduce [ ] the penalties for certain drug- and theft-related offenses and [to] reclassif[y] those offenses as misdemeanors rather than felonies. [Citations.]" ( People v. Zamarripa (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1179 , 1182, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 ( Zamarripa ).) Proposition 47 also added section 1170.18 to the Penal Code, 1 which permits a person who has completed the sentence for an eligible felony conviction to apply to have the conviction redesignated a misdemeanor. ( Ibid. ; see § 1170.18, subd. (f).) If the applicant meets specified criteria, and has not suffered a disqualifying prior conviction, the trial court must redesignate the offense. ( § 1170.18, subds. (g) & (i).)

*324 "The question presented by this case is, 'Prior to what?' " ( People v. Montgomery (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1385 , 1387, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 ( Montgomery ).) We hold that a person who suffers a disqualifying conviction after filing a redesignation application but prior to the trial court's ruling on that application is barred from relief under section 1170.18.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In October 2003, George Donald Hatt pled guilty to possession of…

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.