People v. Quintanilla CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 13, 2020 No. F076951AUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 1001.36 applies retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal, necessitating a conditional limited remand for the trial court to determine the defendant's eligibility for mental health diversion.

Issues

Does Penal Code section 1001.36 apply retroactively to cases pending on appeal?
Is a certificate of probable cause required for a defendant to seek retroactive application of a change in law that does not challenge the validity of the plea?
Is a conditional limited remand appropriate when the record suggests the defendant suffers from a qualifying mental disorder?

Disposition. conditionally reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“defendant “is entitled to a limited remand for the trial court to decide whether he should receive diversion under section 1001.36.””

“His appeal, then, does not attack the plea itself and does not require a certificate of probable cause.”

Filed 10/13/20 P. v. Quintanilla CA5 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F076951 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F16903103) v.

MARIO CESAR QUINTANILLA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge. Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Jeffrey A. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

BACKGROUND On May 16, 2016, police officers encountered defendant Mario Cesar Quintanilla drinking beer in a parking lot. Defendant immediately withdrew a kitchen knife from his pocket and challenged the officers to fight. When verbal attempts to placate defendant failed, the officers used a bean bag gun to subdue him. Defendant resisted arrest and remained combative while in custody.1 On May 18, 2016, the district attorney filed a criminal complaint alleging defendant resisted an officer (Pen. Code,2 § 69 [count 1]); carried a concealed dirk or dagger (§ 21310 [count 2]); and brandished a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 417, subd. (a)(1) [count 3]). The complaint further alleged defendant sustained two prior felony convictions, each of which qualified as a strike offense (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competence and criminal proceedings were suspended. On July 14, 2016, the trial court determined defendant was incompetent to stand trial. Defendant was committed to a state hospital for treatment. On February 16, 2017, the court reinstated criminal proceedings after finding defendant competent to stand trial. On October 3, 2017, defendant pled nolo contendere to count 1 and the prosecution’s motion to dismiss counts 2 and 3 was granted. On November 21, 2017, defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years. He filed a notice of appeal on January 24, 2018. On June 27, 2018, after defendant was sentenced, but while his case was still pending on appeal, the Legislature enacted section 1001.36, which took effect immediately. (Stats. 2018, ch. 34, §§ 24, 37.) Under this provision, certain defendants

People v. Quintanilla CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief