California v. Sapienza
Annotate this CaseIn 2015, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant-appellant, Jeffrey Sapienza pled guilty to criminal threats. The trial court imposed the upper term of three years of imprisonment, but suspended execution of sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal probation.In 2018, the court found defendant in violation of his probation. A few months later, the court imposed the three-year suspended sentence and awarded defendant 903 days of custody credits. On appeal, defendant argued the matter should have been conditionally reversed and remanded to the trial court to determine, retroactively, whether defendant qualified for a pretrial diversion program for individuals diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders pursuant to recently enacted Penal Code section 1001.36. The State contended defendant’s appeal should have been dismissed because the issue raised was outside the scope of his notice of appeal; that section 1001.36 was not retroactive; that even if retroactive, defendant’s judgment was already final and, thus, inapplicable; that retroactive application of a pretrial diversion program would effectively vacate defendant’s conviction violating the separation of powers doctrine; and that the court had already rejected defendant’s mental health defense. The Court of Appeal concurred with the State's contention that because defendant acquiesced in the judgment entered on August 31, 2015, by failing to file an appeal, the judgment was final, and defendant was not entitled to any retroactive relief pursuant to section 1001.36.
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.