California v. Lewis
Annotate this CaseAppellant John Lewis sought post-conviction relief under Proposition 47 to recharacterize his grand theft felony conviction to a misdemeanor. Lewis argued on appeal that the standards outlined in subdivision (f) of Penal Code section 1170.18 applied, and that the trial court erred when it denied his section petition for relief because it erroneously employed the standards for petitioners who were still "serving" their sentences. The different procedures and standards for obtaining the relief made available by section 1170.18 depended on whether the petitioner has "completed his or her sentence" (subdivision (f)), or is "currently serving a sentence" (subdivision (a)), for a felony that has been recharacterized as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. The issue here was a matter of first impression and turned on statutory interpretation: which set of procedures and standards applied to a petitioner who is not currently incarcerated but was out on parole or postrelease community supervision. The Court of Appeals concluded that the standards and procedures specified in section 1170.18, subdivision (f), had limited applicability: it was only available to those persons who have completed their entire sentence, including any period of postrelease supervision, whether through parole or through PRCS. For those still serving "[a] sentence resulting in imprisonment in the state prison . . . [which] shall include a period of parole supervision or postrelease community supervision," the standards and procedures specified in section 1170.18, subdivision (a) applied, including the requirement (imposed under section 1170.18, subdivision (d)) that a successful petitioner serve a one-year period of parole unreduced by any "Sosa" credits. Because the trial court correctly selected the standards applicable to Lewis' petition, and he raised no separate claim that the court's rejection of his second application was an abuse of discretion, the Court affirmed the order.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.