California v. Cortez
Annotate this CaseIn July 2012, defendant Richard Cortez plead guilty to one felony count of possessing methamphetamine, one misdemeanor count of possessing drug paraphernalia, and one misdemeanor count of being under the influence of methamphetamine. Defendant admitted a prior strike and a prison prior. The court sentenced defendant to three years’ probation on condition he serve 270 days in county jail. Approximately two years later, defendant violated the terms of probation for the second time and was sentenced to 16 months in prison on count 1, which was the low term, and a concurrent term of six months in jail on each of the two misdemeanor counts. As a basis for choosing the low term on count 1, the court stated, “Defendant pled at an early stage of proceedings, Small amount of contraband, and no violence.” In June 2015, defendant petitioned for resentencing of his felony conviction as a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivisions (a) and (f). Because defendant was still under supervision, the court found he was still serving his sentence and denied the petition under subdivision (f), but granted the petition under subdivision (a). The court resentenced defendant to 364 days in county jail on count 1, 129 days consecutive in county jail on count 2, and 129 days concurrent on count 3, for a total jail term of 493 days. The court found defendant had 494 days of custody credit. It imposed one year of parole pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (d), and credited the extra day to defendant’s parole period. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review was whether, when a court recalls a felony sentence and imposes a misdemeanor sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) (Proposition 47), the court could revisit the sentence imposed on other misdemeanor counts not subject to Proposition 47, and impose a harsher punishment. The Court of Appeal found that yes, the trial court may do so, provided that the new aggregate sentence did not exceed the prior sentence.
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.