People v. Campbell CA2/3

Filed 2/23/22 P. v. Campbell CA2/3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B302318

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA067879) v.

ELMER CAMPBELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles A. Chung, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan, Blythe Leszkay, Toni R. Johns Estaville and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Elmer Campbell appealed from an order denying his petition to have his conviction for possessing marijuana in prison reduced or dismissed under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64) (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) Prop. 64, § 1, p. 178). In our original opinion filed in 2020, we noted a split of authority, soon to be resolved by the California Supreme Court, about whether Proposition 64 meant that possessing a small amount of marijuana in prison was no longer a felony. We sided with those courts holding that Proposition 64 barred felony charges in those circumstances. We therefore ruled in Campbell’s favor and reversed the trial court. After we issued our opinion, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Raybon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1056 (Raybon), which held, contrary to our conclusion, that possession of marijuana in prison remained a felony violation notwithstanding the passage of Proposition 64. The Supreme Court also granted review in this case and has now transferred the matter with directions to vacate our decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Raybon. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Raybon is dispositive. Accordingly, we vacate our prior decision and affirm the trial court’s order denying Campbell’s petition. BACKGROUND In 2016, Campbell pleaded nolo contendere to possessing contraband cannabis in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a)) and received a sentence of three years in state prison. Later that year, the electorate passed Proposition 64, which reduced cannabis-related crimes to misdemeanors. In 2019, Campbell petitioned to have his conviction redesignated and dismissed