A 2020 bill that caps probation to two years applies to cases still being resolved, the California Supreme Court ruled June 26.
The decision comes from a San Bernardino robbery case.
Ricky Prudholme, with two helpers, was charged with two counts of second degree robbery after loading two pickup trucks with $4,000 in electronic merchandise stolen from a trucking company Nov. 22, 2018.
The business’ employees got in their own vehicles, and blocked Prudholme’s exit, according to the appellate ruling from August 2021. Prudholme, driving his truck, struck an object in one of the employee’s trucks, and threatened to sue the employees for the damage to his vehicle. The employees kept Prudholme and the accomplices there until police arrived.
Prudholme pleaded guilty to second degree robbery Sept. 2, 2020, and the court dismissed his second charge. He was sentenced Oct. 14, 2020, to 365 days in county jail and three years of supervised probation, according to the San Bernardino case access portal. The 365 days were served while he was waiting for the case to be resolved. The probation was scheduled to last from Oct. 14, 2020, to Oct. 13, 2023.
Prudholme filed his appeal Oct. 26, 2020.
Assembly Bill 1950
While the appeal was pending, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1950. The law restricts felony probation to two years, and misdemeanor probation to one year. Previously, felony probation could last as long as the maximum possible term of the sentence.
The law does not apply to violent felonies.
The law became effective Jan. 1, 2021. Then-Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Norwalk) authored the bill. It passed the Senate 26-12, and it passed the Assembly 48-22.
Supporters said the bill was cost-effective.
“Research by the California Budget Center shows that probation services, such as mental health care and addiction treatment, are most effective during the first 18 months of supervision. Research also indicates that providing increased supervision and services earlier reduces an individual’s likelihood to recidivate,” Kamlager-Dove wrote in support of the bill.
The California District Attorneys Association argued the bill was a one-size-fits-all limit on judicial discretion.
“Such a scheme treats dissimilar defendants similarly. A defendant convicted of multiple crimes, misdemeanor or felony, and who has hurt multiple victims, is treated exactly the same as a defendant who is convicted of only one crime,” they wrote.
The Supreme Court’s ruling
Prudholme argued that AB 1950 applies to him retroactively because it went into effect while his case was pending on appeal. The Attorney General agreed, according to the appellate ruling, and so did both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
Prudholme petitioned the state Supreme Court, arguing that the parole should be reduced without calling the plea into appeal.
The Supreme Court agreed with him after considering legislative intent.
The resentencing process would prove meaningless if the prosecution could respond to a successful resentencing petition by withdrawing from the plea agreement and refiling their charges, the court said.
The ruling ended by asking the Legislature to express their intent when creating new laws.
“We conclude by noting that determining legislative intent in these circumstances can be a difficult, divisive, and time consuming one for courts, which have to discern intent from sometimes opaque sources,” the ruling said.
“‘(T)hese issues need not be addressed by appellate litigation if the Legislature expressly states whether the sentencing reforms it enacts are to be given retroactive application on appeal or not, and if so, whether retroactive application applies to negotiated sentences or not,” they continued, quoting the 2022 case People v. Scarano.
Case information
San Bernardino Superior Judge Kyle Brodie presided.
Associate Justice Carol Corrigan wrote the unanimous ruling.
San Bernardino Case No. FWV18004340
Appellate Case No. E076007
Supreme Court Case No. S271057
Read the appellate ruling here.
Read the Supreme Court’s ruling here.
