Skip to content
Name: People v. Park
Case #: S193938
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 05/13/2013

Prior felony which was reduced to misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), no longer qualifies as a prior serious felony for purposes of a five year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a). A jury found Park guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter and other offenses. He admitted a prior serious felony for assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), although he informed the court the prior had been reduced to a misdemeanor. The trial court added a five year enhancement to Park's sentence for the prior serious felony. The Court of Appeal affirmed the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Feyrer
Case #: S154242
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/25/2010

A plea agreement does not restrict the court's authority to declare a "wobbler" as a misdemeanor after the court initially granted probation by suspending the imposition of sentence. There was a no contest plea to a felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and admission of the infliction of great bodily injury. The defendant performed well on probation and the court granted relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4 by setting aside the plea and dismissing the charges. However, the court denied a request to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, sec. 17,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Myers
Case #: B205941
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 01/22/2009

A defendant who has successfully completed drug treatment probation under Penal Code section 1210.1, et seq. is not entitled to reduction of the offense to a misdemeanor where the offense is a felony and not a "wobbler." Appellant pled guilty to Health and Safety Code section 11350 and was granted drug treatment probation under the provisions of Penal Code section 1210. After successfully completing probation, he moved to have the offense reduced to a misdemeanor, arguing that since section 1210 provided that if a defendant successfully completed probation he could not be sentenced to prison, the punishment for the offense…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Feyrer
Case #: B192752
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 05/29/2007
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 9/12/07: S154242

Trial court had the discretion to reduce a wobbler offense to a misdemeanor despite the admission of a GBI enhancement. Appellant pleaded no contest to an assault which was punishable as a "wobbler." (Pen. Code, sec. 245, subd. (a)(1).) He also admitted a GBI enhancement. The trial court placed him on probation. After an early termination of probation, appellant sought to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor and dismiss it under section 17, subdivision (b). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, but declined to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor because it…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Camarillo
Case #: A087919
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 11/27/2000
Subsequent History: None

When a court acts under Penal Code section 17 to specify that a conviction for driving under the influence is a misdemeanor, that offense cannot later be pled as a prior felony conviction under Vehicle Code section 23550.5 even if it was originally punished as a felony. The unambiguous language of section 17 requires that the offenses be treated as a misdemeanor "for all purposes." There is no relevant exception in former section 23175.5 (current section 23550.5) or in its legislative history to this clear mandate. Therefore, the judgment in this case had to be reversed and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hawkins
Case #: H021902
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/05/2002
Subsequent History: Order mod. opn, rehg. denied 7/2/02. Rev. denied 8/28/02.

Appellant was convicted of the felony of knowingly acessing and taking data from a computer system, a violation of Penal Code section 502, subdivision (c)(2), for taking the source code of his former employer. The jury found not true an allegation that the property taken was valued at more than $2.5 million, and the trial court denied appellant’s motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting arguments that: the offense should not be a felony as the statute lacked a mens rea requirement; the statute is unconstitutionally vague; the trial…

View Full Summary