People v. Xiao Dong Lin

While Respondents in these consolidated appeals were awaiting trial on felony charges of possession, sale, and cultivation of marijuana, California voters passed Proposition 64-"the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act." Based on Proposition 64, the district attorney amended the complaints to reflect misdemeanor rather than felony charges. Respondents challenged the move, arguing that Proposition 64 barred the amended criminal complaints against them. The trial court sustained Respondents' demurrers, dismissing the charges.

We reverse. Proposition 64 did not create a legislative pardon for defendants facing felony charges for unlicensed sale and cultivation of marijuana before it passed. Rather, California voters changed the penalties for the conduct alleged in the complaints here by making those penalties less severe. Under California law, it was appropriate to amend the complaints to invoke the lighter punishment. ( In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal. 2d 740 , 742, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d 948 .)

The Amended Complaints and Demurrers

On April 7, 2016, the People filed felony complaints charging Defendants Hua Ou, Xiao Dong Lin, Jianhan Ye, and Liwen Ruan each with…