gno.law

People v. Neild

California Court of Appeal · D038132 · 2002-07-29 · Published · 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 803 · 99 Cal. App. 4th 1223

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE S. NEILD, Defendant and Appellant

Area
criminal
Panel
Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T07:18Z · confidence high

The trial court revoked probation on a prior case and sentenced the defendant to prison for a new battery conviction, determining that Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (k) prohibited it from granting probation or striking the finding under section 1385. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the Legislature intended section 1203, subdivision (k) to eliminate the trial court's discretion to strike the finding to render the defendant eligible for probation.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Trial court's determination that Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (k) prohibited it from granting probation or striking the finding under section 1385.
“Hence, the Legislature intended section 1203, subdivision (k) to eliminate the trial court’s discretion to grant probation to a defendant convicted of a violent felony while on probation for a violent felony conviction.”
de novocorrectagree with court
The appellate court correctly applied the principle that when a statute expressly prohibits probation, the trial court lacks discretion under section 1385 to strike the finding to allow probation, consistent with People v. Tanner and the legislative history of similar statutes.

Authorities

  • relied: People v. Tanner (1979) 24 Cal.3d 514 — Trial courts do not have discretion to strike a gun-use enhancement to make a defendant eligible for probation because the Legislature intended otherwise.
  • relied: People v. Williams (1981) 30 Cal.3d 470 — The Legislature intended to preclude judicial discretion under section 1385 for crimes falling within specific probation-prohibiting statutes like section 1203.06.
  • relied: People v. Ruby (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 462 — In the absence of express legislative intent to preclude section 1385 discretion, courts may strike prior conviction findings to grant probation.
  • relied: People v. McGuire (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 687 — The Legislature intended section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(11) to eliminate the trial court’s section 1385 discretion to strike a prior conviction finding to render a defendant eligible for probation.
  • relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must review the record for error when presenting no argument for reversal.
  • relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must file a brief identifying any arguable issues even if they are not arguable.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly analogizes section 1203, subdivision (k) to section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(11), which the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have held precludes section 1385 discretion. It supports this conclusion with legislative history showing the rejection of an 'interest of justice' exception.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence medium

The trial court revoked Neild's probation in an earlier case, found Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (k) barred probation on his new battery conviction committed while on felony probation, and imposed a three-year middle term with concurrent terms. On a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal requested supplemental briefing, held that the Legislature intended section 1203, subdivision (k) to eliminate section 1385 discretion to strike the finding to make a defendant probation-eligible, found no other arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Trial court's determination that section 1203, subdivision (k) prohibited it from granting probation and that it lacked section 1385 discretion to strike the subdivision (k) finding
“Hence, the Legislature intended section 1203, subdivision (k) to eliminate the trial court’s discretion to grant probation to a defendant convicted of a violent felony while on probation for a violent felony conviction.”
de novocorrectagree with court
This is a pure question of statutory interpretation. Under Tanner and Williams, section 1385 discretion survives unless the Legislature has shown a contrary intent; the court found that intent because subdivision (k) tracks the 'probation shall not be granted' language of sections 1203.06 and 1203.07 that had already been construed (Tanner, McGuire) as removing section 1385 discretion, and because the legislative history showed the Legislature considered and rejected an interest-of-justice exception. That reasoning is a fair application of the presumption that the Legislature adopts prior judicial constructions of borrowed language, and the committee report is concrete evidence of intent. The court did not cite Romero, the leading Supreme Court statement of the clear-intent requirement, and slightly misdescribed the statute (it requires only that the prior offense be a felony, not a violent felony), but neither affects the result. Justice Kennard's vote to grant review shows the question was debatable, but no specific legal error is apparent.
Remaining Wende/Anders issues: validity of the guilty plea, imposition of the three-year middle term, and revocation of probation with imposition of a prison term in the earlier case
“has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue except the sections 1203, subdivision (k) and 1385 issues discussed”
unclearcorrectunsure
The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and found no arguable issue. The opinion does not discuss these points in substance, and because Neild pleaded guilty he could not attack the facts underlying his convictions (section 1237.5; Martin). Nothing in the opinion suggests the plea, the middle-term choice, or the revocation was improper, so the conclusion appears supported, but the record described is too thin to evaluate independently.

Authorities

  • relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed counsel who finds no arguable issues may file a brief asking the appellate court to independently review the record for error.
  • relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel may identify possible but not arguable issues for the reviewing court's consideration.
  • relied: People v. Tanner (1979) 24 Cal.3d 514 — Notwithstanding section 1385, trial courts lack discretion to strike a section 1203.06 gun-use finding to make a defendant eligible for probation because the Legislature intended otherwise.
  • relied: People v. Williams (1981) 30 Cal.3d 470 — Section 1385 discretion is precluded only where sufficient indicia of legislative intent to preclude it exist; Tanner found such indicia in section 1203.06's history.
  • relied: People v. Burke (1956) 47 Cal.2d 45 — Section 1385 gives trial courts discretion to strike allegations that would enhance punishment in furtherance of justice.
  • relied: People v. Ruby (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 462 — Absent express legislative intent in statutory language or history, courts retain section 1385 discretion to strike a prior drug conviction for probation eligibility; distinguished because the Legislature later abrogated it.
  • relied: People v. McGuire (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 687 — By adding section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(11) in language already judicially construed as barring section 1385 discretion, the Legislature adopted that construction and eliminated discretion to strike the prior conviction finding.
  • relied: People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687 — A defendant who pleads guilty cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction on appeal.
  • missed: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Section 1385 authority to dismiss in furtherance of justice is preserved unless the Legislature clearly evidences an intent to eliminate it; this is the controlling framework for the question the court decided.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly framed the issue under Tanner and Williams and supported its conclusion with both the borrowed-language canon applied in McGuire and specific legislative history showing rejection of an interest-of-justice exception. It did not cite Romero, the Supreme Court's leading statement of the clear-intent rule for section 1385, and it misdescribed the prior-offense element of subdivision (k) as a violent felony, though neither gap changes the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion — Huffman

Opinion

HUFFMAN, J.

Jesse S. Neild was on probation in People v. Neild (Super. Ct. San Diego County, 2001, No. SCD136642) (case No. SCD136642) for battery inflicting serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)) 1 and accessory to a felony (§ 32) when he was charged with battery inflicting serious bodily injury in People v. Neild (Super Ct. San Diego County, 2001, No. SCD 119959) (case No. SCN119959). He entered a negotiated guilty *1225 plea in case No. SCN119959 to battery inflicting serious bodily injury and admitted committing a violent and serious felony while on felony probation. (§ 1203, subd. (k).) The court revoked probation in case No. SCD136642 and found section 1203, subdivision (k), prohibited it from granting probation in case No. SCN119959. It sentenced Neild to prison for the three-year middle term for battery inflicting serious bodily injury in case No. SCN119959 with a concurrent term for being an accessory and the battery inflicting serious bodily injury conviction in case No. SCN136642.

Discussion

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071], Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Neild’s guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to strike the section 1203, subdivision (k) finding; (3) whether the trial court erred in imposing the three-year middle term; and (4) whether the trial court erred in revoking probation in case No. SCD136642 and imposing a prison term. 2

We granted Neild permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. While reviewing the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we requested additional briefing on the question of whether the trial court erred in failing to exercise its discretion to strike the section 1203, subdivision (k) finding.

Section 1203, subdivision (k), provides: “Probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution of, or imposition of sentence be suspended for, any person who is convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of section 667.5, or a serious felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of section 1192.7, and who was on probation for a felony offense at the time of the commission of the new felony offense.”

Section 1385, on the other hand, gives the trial court discretion to strike allegations that would enhance punishment in the furtherance of justice. (People v. Burke (1956) 47 Cal.2d 45, 50-51 [301 P.2d 241].) However, the *1226 Supreme Court in People v. Tanner (1979) 24 Cal.3d 514, 518-520 [156 Cal.Rptr. 450, 596 P.2d 328] (Tanner), held that notwithstanding section 1385, trial courts do not have discretion to strike a gun-use enhancement (§ 1203.06) 3 in order to make the gun user eligible for probation because the Legislature intended otherwise. In People v. Williams (1981) 30 Cal.3d 470, 483 [179 Cal.Rptr. 443, 637 P.2d 1029] the Supreme Court discussed Tanner, saying: “Although section 1203.06 did not expressly state that judicial discretion under section 1385 was precluded, this court found sufficient indices of such an intent in the history of the statute. ‘We must therefore conclude the Legislature intends discretion may be exercised in the case of crimes falling within section 1203 but not within section 1203.06. Any other construction restores the pre-1975 law allowing a court to grant probation to any criminal if the court deems that to do so would be in the interest of justice. Such judicial resurrection renders the 1975 legislation a nullity.’ [Citation.]”

Neild relies on People v. Ruby (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 462 [251 Cal.Rptr. 339] (Ruby) to argue that the legislative history of section 1203, subdivision (k), does not explicitly show that the Legislature intended to prohibit the trial court from exercising section 1385 discretion to strike the section 1203, subdivision (k) finding. In Ruby, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d at page 465, while considering whether the trial court had discretion to strike a prior drug conviction, 4 we found: “Unlike the statute analyzed in Tanner, there is no express legislative intent either in the statutory language or its legislative history to preclude the exercise of judicial discretion under . . . section 1385. Thus, we are bound by the decisions of our Supreme Court permitting application of . . . section 1385 discretion in these circumstances.”

However, after Ruby, the Legislature enacted section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(ll) to negate that holding. (People v. McGuire (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 687 695 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 12] (McGuire).) “The Legislature ‘is deemed to be aware of statutes and judicial decisions already in existence, and to have enacted or amended a statute in light thereof. [Citation.] Where a statute is framed in language of an earlier enactment on the same or an *1227 analogous subject, and that enactment has been judicially construed, the Legislature is presumed to have adopted that construction. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Thus, in adding subparagraph (11) to section 1203.07, subdivision (a), in 1989, the Legislature is deemed to have been aware of the case law . . . holding section 1203.07 prohibited courts from striking prior conviction findings for purposes of granting probation. [Citation.] The Legislature is also deemed to have adopted that judicial construction of section 1203.07. [Citation.] Hence, we conclude the Legislature intended section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(ll), to eliminate the trial court’s section 1385 discretion to strike a prior conviction finding to render a defendant eligible for probation.” (Mc Guire, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 694.) 5

By denying probation to a defendant convicted of a serious or violent felony while on probation for another felony conviction, section 1203, subdivision (k), tracks the language prohibiting probation to a defendant convicted of one of the listed drug offenses after a prior conviction of one of the listed drug offenses in section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(ll). Hence, the Legislature intended section 1203, subdivision (k) to eliminate the trial court’s discretion to grant probation to a defendant convicted of a violent felony while on probation for a violent felony conviction.

We took judicial notice of a report for the Senate Committee on Criminal Procedure hearing on Assembly Bill No. 893 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.), May 14,1996, Milton Marks, Chair. The report suggested placing “this offense in the category of disallowing probation except where the interest of justice would best be served by granting probation.” (Id. at p. 8.) The bill’s sponsor was concerned that “the interest of justice exception would swallow the rule.” (Id. at p. 9.) The change was not made. The Legislature thus showed its intent that there be no interest of justice or furtherance of justice exception to the ban on probation to defendants convicted of a serious or violent felony while on probation for another felony conviction.

A review of the entire record, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue except the sections 1203, subdivision (k) and 1385 issues discussed ante.

*1228 Disposition

Judgment affirmed.

Kremer, P. J., and Benke, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied July 29, 2002, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 18, 2002. George, C. J., and Baxter, J., did not participate therein. Kennard, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

1

All statutory references are to the Pen.al Code unless otherwise specified.

2

Because Neild entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693 [108 Cal.Rptr. 809, 511 P.2d 1161].) We need not recite the facts.

3

Section 1203.06 provides in part: “Notwithstanding [s]ection 1203: HQ (a) Probation shall not be granted to . . . any of the following persons: fl[] (1) Any person who personally used a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of any of the following crimes: flQ • • • [ID (B) Robbery, in violation of [s]ection 211.”

4

In Ruby, the trial court denied probation pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370, which provides: ft[] “Any person convicted of violating [Health and Safety Code] Section 11350, 11351, 11351.5, 11352, . . . 11357, 11359, 11360, 11361, 11363, 11366, or 11368, or committing any offense referred to in those sections, shall not, in any case, be granted probation by the trial court or have the execution of the sentence imposed upon him or her suspended by the court, if he or she has been previously convicted of any offense described in subdivision (c).”

5

Section 1203.07, subdivision (a) provides in part: “Notwithstanding [s]ection 1203, probation shall not be granted to, nor shall execution or imposition of sentence be suspended for any of the any of the following persons: HQ ... HI (11) Any person convicted of violating [s]ection 11351, 11351.5, or 11378 of the Health and Safety Code, by possessing for sale cocaine base, cocaine, or methamphetamine, or convicted of violating [s]ection 11352, or 11379 of the Health and Safety Code, by selling or offering to sell cocaine base, cocaine, or methamphetamine and who has one or more convictions for violating [s]ection 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, or 11379.5 of the Health and Safety Code.”

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by