California v. Super. Ct.
Annotate this CaseReal Party in Interest Margarita Rodas was granted probation in 2007 after entering a negotiated plea of no contest to transporting heroin under former Health and Safety Code section 11352. At the time, the statute prohibited transporting a controlled substance for personal use. After violating probation on several occasions, Rodas eventually absconded and her whereabouts were unknown until 2015 when she appeared in court and filed a motion to vacate her felony transportation conviction and replace it with a misdemeanor sentence for simple possession. Rodas sought the retroactive benefit of a 2014 statutory amendment to section 11352 that required transportation for sale rather than merely for personal use. The trial court later granted her oral motion to withdraw her plea and reinstated the original charges. The State petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order allowing Rodas to withdraw her nearly nine year old plea. According to the State, Rodas’ conviction had long been final for review purposes because she did not challenge the probation order within the six-month time limit set forth in Penal Code section 1018. The court thus acted outside of its jurisdiction in granting the motion because Rodas was not entitled either to withdraw her plea or to the retroactive benefit of the intervening amendment to section 11352. The Court of Appeal agreed the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting Rodas’ motion to withdraw her no contest plea. The ruling vacating the no contest plea and reinstating the charges was reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for appropriate proceedings on the probation violation allegation.
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.