Filed 3/14/18; Certified for Publication 4/9/18 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIO ARTURO BARBOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A150888

 (San Francisco County

 Super. Ct. No. SCN216914)

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Barboza argues his robbery conviction should be reversed and 

remanded to juvenile court pursuant to Proposition 57, which abolished the direct filing 

of criminal charges against juveniles in adult criminal court. Our Supreme Court’s recent 

decision in People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 (Lara) vindicates 

defendant’s position that Proposition 57 is retroactive. However, defendant does not 

benefit from Lara because the judgment in his case is final. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On November 29, 2011, the San Francisco District Attorney filed a multi-count 

information in superior court charging Barboza with various felonies and enhancement

allegations. On July 1, 2016, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Barboza pleaded guilty 

to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted an armed-with-a-firearm 

allegation (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The remaining counts and enhancement 

allegations were dismissed by the court on the prosecution’s motion. The information, 
filed directly in adult court, alleged that at the time of the commission of the offense, 

defendant was a minor 16 years of age or older within the meaning of Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 707, former subdivision (d)(1).) 

On July 25, 2016, the trial court imposed a six-year prison sentence, suspended 

execution of that sentence, and placed defendant on formal probation for five years on 

various terms and conditions. Defendant did not appeal.

On November 8, 2016, the voters approved Proposition 57, which repealed section 

707, former subdivision (d) (Prop. 57, § 4.2, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 

2016), eff. Nov. 9, 2016) and now requires “a judge, not a prosecutor, to decide whether 

juveniles should be tried in adult court.” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 

2016) text of Prop. 57, Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, § 2, p.141; § 707, 

subd. (a)(1).) On December 8, 2016, defendant filed a motion requesting his case be 

remanded to the juvenile court on the ground that Proposition 57’s repeal of section 707, 

subdivision (d) applies retroactively to minors whose nonfinal convictions rest on charges 

directly filed in adult court. The motion was denied. Defendant timely appeals.1

DISCUSSION

In Lara, supra, 4 Cal.5th 299, our Supreme Court held the rationale of In re

Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada) and People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 

applies to a statutory change that makes reduced punishment possible. (Lara, at p. 303.) 

“The possibility of being treated as a juvenile in juvenile court—where rehabilitation is 

the goal—rather than being tried and sentenced as an adult can result in dramatically 

different and more lenient treatment. Therefore, Proposition 57 reduces the possible 

punishment for a class of persons, namely juveniles. For this reason, Estrada’s inference 

of retroactivity applies. As nothing in Proposition 57’s text or ballot materials rebuts this 

inference, we conclude this part of Proposition 57 applies to all juveniles charged directly 

1 As the facts underlying defendant’s conviction are not relevant to the issue raised 

on appeal, we do not summarize them.

2

 
in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted.” (Id. at pp. 303–

304.)

Lara does not help defendant because the judgment in his case is final. When a

trial court imposes a state prison sentence and suspends execution of that sentence during 

a probationary period, the judgment rendered is a final judgment for the purposes of 

appeal. (People v. Amons (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 855, 869–870; People v. Chagolla

(1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1050–1051, cited with approval in People v. Howard

(1997)16 Cal.4th 1081, 1088 (Howard).) “For purposes of the Estrada rule, a judgment 

is ‘not final so long as the courts may provide a remedy on direct review [including] the 

time within which to petition to the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari.’ ”

(People v. Diaz (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1336; see People v. Smith (2015) 

234 Cal.App.4th 1460, 1465.) In this case, the time for filing an appeal expired 60 days 

after July 25, 2016, the date the court imposed sentence, i.e., September 26, 2016.

Defendant did not appeal. Therefore, his conviction became final before Proposition 57 

went into effect on November 9, 2016.

Defendant argues in his reply brief that because People v. Karaman (1992) 

4 Cal.4th 335 permits the trial court to retain the jurisdiction to vacate or modify a 

sentence that has not yet been executed, his sentence was not final for Estrada purposes. 

We disagree. In Howard, supra, 16 Cal.4th 1081, our Supreme Court “acknowledged a 

narrow exception to the general rule depriving the court of authority to modify a sentence 

once it has been imposed and entered in the clerk’s minutes” when there is a brief stay to 

permit the defendant to get his affairs in order. (Howard, at p. 1088.) However, 

Karaman did not change the sentencing rules pertaining to “the court’s power to modify 

an imposed sentence, long ago final in terms of appealability, execution of which the 

court had suspended during a probationary period.” (Id. at p. 1090, see p. 1092.) 

Karaman has no application to this case.

3
DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

4
_________________________

Dondero, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Humes, P. J.

_________________________

Banke, J.

A150888 People v. Barboza

5
Filed 4/9/18

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIO ARTURO BARBOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A150888

 (San Francisco County

 Super. Ct. No. SCN216914)

ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION 

FOR PUBLICATION

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

The opinion in the above-entitled matter, filed on March 14, 2018, was not 

certified for publication in the Official Reports. After the court’s review of a request 

under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1120, and good cause established under 

rule 8.1105, it is hereby ordered that the opinion should be published in the Official 

Reports. 

Dated: _______________________________

Dondero, J.

6
Trial Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Rene Navarro

Counsel:

First District Appellate Project, Jonathan Soglin, Executive Director, L. Richard 

Braucher, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler and Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant 

Attorneys General, Laurence K. Sullivan and Donna M. Provenzano, Deputy Attorneys 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A150888 People v. Barboza

7