Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 25, 2006, Roberto Talamantes pled no contest to corporal injury to a spouse, cohabitant, or child's parent under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), and admitted a section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), enhancement for personal use of a deadly weapon, a knife. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for five years. Nine months later, while on probation, he pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon under section 245, subdivision (a)(1), pursuant to a plea agreement, and was sentenced to the low term of two years in state prison; the court had earlier revoked his probation in the first case and terminated the revoked grant of probation as part of the plea agreement.
Seventeen years later, in 2024, Talamantes filed motions under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), to reduce each felony conviction to a misdemeanor, but neither motion advised the court of any rehabilitative efforts or other personal facts relevant to rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal granted the People's unopposed request for judicial notice. At a June 3, 2025 hearing, the People objected, noting Talamantes was currently serving time in state prison—believed to be a life sentence—and that his probation had been terminated in the first case. The trial court denied both motions; the minute order for the corporal injury conviction stated that the defendant was currently serving a life sentence in state prison. Talamantes timely appealed both orders, and the appeals were consolidated.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed both orders. As to the assault with a deadly weapon conviction in case No. XCNBA321010, Talamantes rightfully made no argument challenging the denial, and the court explained that a felony cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b), when a prison sentence has been imposed; it therefore affirmed the order declining to reduce that conviction.
As to the section 273.5 corporal injury conviction, a wobbler offense, the court acknowledged that the trial court retained discretion to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor even though it had suspended imposition of sentence, granted probation, and later revoked and terminated that probation. The court disagreed with Talamantes's contention that the trial court proceeded on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion: the burden was on Talamantes to affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court misunderstood its sentencing discretion, and he failed to meet that burden.
The Legislature intended section 17, subdivision (b), to give relief to those who have shown rehabilitation, and a court's consideration of reduction requires review of the whole record, including the petitioner's criminal record. Judicially noticed records confirmed Talamantes had been in custody in state prison since 2021 and would be eligible for parole in 2041. Sustaining another felony conviction after two prior felony convictions does not show rehabilitation, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying reduction of the section 273.5 conviction.
Key Takeaways
- A felony conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under section 245, subdivision (a)(1), cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b), when the defendant was sentenced to state prison.
- A wobbler offense such as section 273.5 remains eligible for reduction even after probation is revoked and terminated, but the defendant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the trial court misunderstood its discretion.
- Section 17, subdivision (b), relief is intended for those who have shown rehabilitation, and sustaining another felony conviction after two prior felony convictions does not demonstrate rehabilitation.
- Denial of a reduction motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and no abuse occurs where the record shows the court considered the defendant's current life sentence and criminal history.
Why It Matters
This unpublished memorandum opinion illustrates the heavy burden on a defendant seeking section 17, subdivision (b), relief years after conviction: without evidence of rehabilitation, and with a current life sentence plus an additional felony conviction, the trial court's denial will be affirmed. It also confirms the two-track rule that a prison sentence makes reduction legally unavailable, while a wobbler remains reducible in the trial court's informed discretion.