Reported / Citable
Background
Rolf Bishop worked for the County of San Diego for seven and a half years until his termination in November 2020. In December 2021, he was charged with one felony count of violating Government Code section 1090, the state conflict-of-interest statute. The offense is a ‘wobbler’ that can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor. In May 2022, Bishop pleaded guilty to the felony.
Several months later, the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA) notified Bishop that he had forfeited his accrued pension benefits between his earliest commission of the felony (March 2017) and his separation date under Government Code section 7522.74. At his March 2023 sentencing, the criminal court reduced the offense to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b)(3) and placed him on summary probation. Bishop asked SDCERA to reinstate his benefits given the misdemeanor reduction. SDCERA refused. Bishop petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate. The trial court denied the petition. Bishop appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Following the Second District’s decision in Estrada v. Public Employees’ Retirement System, the court held that for purposes of section 7522.74, a public employee is ‘convicted’ of a job-related felony at the moment of adjudication of guilt — by plea or jury verdict — not only at entry of judgment. Bishop’s May 2022 felony plea constituted his ‘conviction’ under the statute, and the forfeiture attached.
The court further held that a later reduction of the felony to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b) does not undo the section 7522.74 pension forfeiture. The pension-forfeiture statute looks to the employee’s status at the time of conviction; it does not provide a mechanism for retroactive reinstatement based on subsequent felony-to-misdemeanor reductions. Section 17(b)’s reduction operates as a sentencing-and-collateral-consequences benefit but does not erase the felony conviction for all purposes — and section 7522.74 is one of the purposes for which the original felony status governs.
Key Takeaways
- Government Code section 7522.74 imposes pension forfeiture upon adjudication of guilt of a job-related felony, by plea or jury verdict; entry of judgment is not a separate prerequisite.
- Subsequent reduction of the felony to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b) does not undo the section 7522.74 pension forfeiture.
- Public employees facing wobbler charges should be aware that pleading to a felony — even with the expectation of later reduction — triggers pension-forfeiture consequences that survive the reduction.
- Defense counsel negotiating wobbler-pleading strategies for public employees should consider pension-forfeiture exposure as a separate, irreversible collateral consequence.
- The decision aligns with Estrada and provides statewide consistency in applying section 7522.74.
Why It Matters
For California public employees facing job-related criminal charges — and for their counsel — this decision is a sharp reminder that pension forfeiture under section 7522.74 is a powerful and largely irreversible collateral consequence of a felony conviction. Pleading to a felony to facilitate a later misdemeanor reduction does not protect against pension forfeiture; the original felony adjudication triggers and locks in the loss.
For criminal defense counsel representing public employees, the practical lesson is to evaluate pension exposure as part of any plea decision and to negotiate, where possible, a misdemeanor disposition from the outset. For pension-system administrators, the case provides clear authority to enforce section 7522.74 forfeitures despite later misdemeanor-reduction efforts. For public-policy observers, the case affirms California’s strict approach to pension forfeiture for public-employee misconduct.