<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID MICHAEL VINSON, Defendant and Appellant. F059302 (Super. Ct. No. BF127977A) OPINION <br/>Filed 2/23/11 Certified for partial publication 3/16/11 (order attached) <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br/>FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=360 valign=top > <br/>LANDVALUE 77, LLC et al., <br/>Plaintiffs and Appellants, <br/>v. <br/>BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY et al., <br/>Defendants and Respondents; <br/>KASHIAN ENTERPRISES, L.P., <br/>Real Party in Interest and Respondent. </td> <td width=274 valign=top > <br/> <br/>F058451 <br/> <br/>(Super. Ct. Nos. 07CECG02872 & 07CECG02874) <br/> <br/> <br/><b >OPINION</b> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….</b> <br/> <br/><b >A. <u>Retroactivity</u>.</b> <br/>The parties agree that Vinson's conviction in the present case was not yet final when the amendment went into effect. (See <i >People v. Vieira </i>(2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 306 [for determining retroactive application of amendment to <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">criminal statute</a>, judgment is not final until time for petitioning United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari has passed].) Accordingly, if the amendment to section 666 applies retroactively, Vinson is entitled to its benefits. <br/> The Attorney General originally argued that the amendment did not apply retroactively. At oral argument, however, she withdrew that claim and conceded the point. We believe the concession is well founded, as we explain. <br/> Section 3 provides: â€