Defendant on probation was not entitled to retroactive application of Proposition 57 under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 because his conviction was final before Proposition 57 went into effect. In July 2016, Barboza pleaded guilty to a single count of robbery and admitted a firearm allegation in adult court. He was a minor at the time of the offenses. The trial court imposed a six-year prison term, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed Barboza on probation. He did not appeal. On November 8, 2016, Proposition 57 passed, requiring a judge, not a prosecutor, to decide whether juveniles should be tried in adult court. In December 2016, Barboza filed a motion requesting that his case be remanded to the juvenile court, arguing that Proposition 57 was retroactive and should be applied to his case under Estrada. The motion was denied and he appealed. Held: Affirmed. In People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, the court held that Estrada’s inference of retroactivity applies to Proposition 57. As a result, Proposition 57 applies to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted. “For purposes of the Estrada rule, a judgment is ‘not final so long as the courts may provide a remedy on direct review [including] the time within which to petition to the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari.'” (People v. Diaz (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1336.) Here, however, Barboza’s conviction became final before Proposition 57 went into effect on November 9, 2016. When a trial court imposes a state prison sentence and suspends execution of that sentence during a probationary period, the judgment rendered is a final judgment for the purposes of appeal. Because Barboza did not appeal, his conviction became final in September 2016.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A150888.PDF