Court Opinion

ID: 9723210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:06:53.402557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:45.604892
License: Public Domain

KINGSLEY, J.—I dissent.
I regard the case at bench as controlled by In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 [48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948]. In Estrada, as here, the defendant had been “convicted” prior to the statutory reduction of *709penalty, but, as here, that conviction had not yet become “final” until after the amendment had taken effect. It follows from Estrada that the date of “conviction” is not controlling, but the date of finality of that conviction is. As the majority opinion agrees, Callahan’s “conviction” did not become “final” until after the January 1st date on which the amendment of section 13352 of the Vehicle Code became law.
I would affirm the judgment granting the writ of mandate.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied’ November 18, 1976. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.