People v. Stranger CA3

Filed 1/28/22 P. v. Stranger CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C092767

v. (Super. Ct. No. NCR73171)

PAUL ARCHIE STANGER,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2008, defendant Paul Archie Stanger pleaded guilty to illegal sale of marijuana. In November 2016, voters passed the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. (People v. Boatwright (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 848, 853.) One aspect of the act is permitting those convicted of marijuana-related felonies to apply to have their convictions redesignated as misdemeanors. (People v. Laird (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 458, 463; see Health & Saf. Code, § 11361.8, subds. (e) & (f).)1 In 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) identified defendant as potentially eligible for redesignation of his sentence

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

1

to a misdemeanor. On June 29, 2020, the People filed a challenge to the redesignation, arguing defendant is not eligible; but they mistakenly filed it in another of defendant’s criminal cases, one that did not involve a marijuana conviction. A month later, on July 29, 2020, the People filed an amended challenge to redesignation, this time in the correct case. After considering the People’s challenge, the trial court denied the redesignation, finding that defendant had actual notice of the challenge. Defendant now contends the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction because the People did not “file” their challenge in the correct case until after the statutory deadline. But because the statute only required the People to “inform” the trial court and defendant of the challenge by the deadline, and the People did so, we will affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to sale of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to three years in prison. Due to subsequent changes in the law, those convicted of marijuana-related felonies may now be eligible to have their convictions redesignated as misdemeanors. (People v. Laird, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 463; § 11361.8, subds. (e) & (f).) Section 11361.9 provides in pertinent part: “(a) On or before July 1, 2019, the [DOJ] shall review the records in the state summary criminal history information database and shall identify past convictions that are potentially eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation pursuant to Section 11361.8. The [DOJ] shall notify the prosecution of all cases in their jurisdiction that are eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation. [¶] (b) The prosecution shall have until July 1, 2020, to review all cases and determine whether to challenge the recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation. [¶] (c) [¶] . . . [¶] (3) On or before July 1, 2020, the prosecution shall inform the court and the public defender’s office in their county when