The California Supreme Court ruled that a new limitation on sentences of probation for non-violent offenders can apply retroactively to certain plea agreements. Defendants whose guilty pleas had yet to be finalized when the law took effect in 2021 can rely on the enhanced protection of the new sentencing limits.

People v. Prudholme concerns Assembly Bill 1950, a California prison reform bill passed in 2020. Intended to address inequalities in the justice system, AB 1950 caps sentences of probation to one year for misdemeanors and two years for felonies. Previously, defendants could be sentenced to probation for up to the maximum possible term of the sentence, or up to five years for crimes with sentences of five years or less. The new sentencing limitations do not apply to violent felonies, crimes with a specific, defined sentence in the statute, or financial crimes involving more than $25,000.

The defendant in Prudholme pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery in 2019. The parties agreed to a sentence of one year in jail and three years of probation. The defendant subsequently filed an appeal. While that appeal was pending, lawmakers passed AB 1950. The defendant argued that the law should apply retroactively to his guilty plea, reducing his sentence from three years of probation to the new two-year maximum.

The California high court unanimously sided with the defendant. Although the bill did not make explicit whether it should apply retroactively, the principles of legislative intent suggest it should. Long-standing precedent indicates that “a reduction of punishment reflect sufficient.” Probation may be different from incarceration, but it’s still an infringement on the liberty of the defendant. The legislature, therefore, “must have intended” the new lighter punishment to “apply to every case to which it constitutionally could apply.”

As a result, the Court concluded AB 1950 applies retroactively to all cases that were not finalized at the time the law went into effect. Because the defendant’s case was still on appeal when AB 1950 went into effect, his case was not final, and the new limits on probation apply to his conviction.

The Court also noted that retroactive application of the new rule would not change the state’s deal with the defendant so fundamentally as to require giving the state the chance to withdraw from the plea agreement. The purpose of the law “would be thwarted” if prosecutors were allowed to withdraw and renegotiate pending plea deals in light of the new limits on probation.

AB 1950 was meant to help former convicts who could be sent back to jail as much as five years after release for minor probation violations. As acknowledged by the Court, a defendant’s violation of the terms of probation “can lead to a return to jail or prison, without the right to a jury trial on the question of the violation or the commission of a new offense.”

AB 1950’s sponsors lauded the Court’s decision, noting the importance of the bill in addressing criminal sentencing inequalities. “Black and brown people are disproportionately impacted by harsh sentencing,” explained current U.S. Representative and former California Assembly Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove, “including long probationary periods that create barriers for reentering our society.”