Error and/or relief
The matter is remanded for resentencing under section 1172.75 with directions that the court determine whether reduction of his Three Strikes sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 is appropriate.
First Holding:
Generally, a trial court’s discretionary decision whether to dismiss or strike a sentencing allegation or enhancement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. However, a trial court’s discretion must be guided and controlled by fixed legal principles and exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law. A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standards applicable to the issue at hand.
Additionally, an erroneous understanding by the trial court of its discretionary power is not a true exercise of discretion. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion” of the sentencing court. A trial court that misunderstands the scope of its sentencing discretion cannot be said to have properly exercised that discretion. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates the court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.
Authority:
People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 373, 376
People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 159
People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977
Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 85
People v. Marquez (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 797, 803
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391
People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8
Second Holding:
Under the original Three Strikes law, a defendant with two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions would be sentenced to a life term for a current felony conviction even if the current conviction was not a serious or violent felony.
In 2012, the Reform Act was enacted under Proposition 36, amending the law to reduce the punishment prescribed for certain Three Strikes offenders. Under the Reform Act, a defendant with two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions, whose current conviction is for a nonserious or nonviolent felony, receives a doubled sentence rather than a life sentence, unless certain disqualifying factors were proven. If the petitioner satisfied the criteria for resentencing, the petitioner was resentenced as a second strike offender with a doubled term, unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
Authority:
PEN 1170.126
People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 651
Third Holding:
Effective January 1, 2020, SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5 by limiting the prior prison term enhancement to prior terms for sexually violent offenses. Effective January 1, 2022, SB 483 codified section 1172.75, which set forth the resentencing procedure, and applied retroactively to persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes such prison priors. Where a now invalid enhancement was imposed, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. The statute directs that the resentencing court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
PEN 667.5(b)
People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 852
Fourth Holding:
Permitting recall and resentencing of indeterminate sentences in a section 1172.75 hearing does not unconstitutionally amend section 1170.126. First, section 1170.126(k) permits resentencing of defendants subject to section 1170.126 by some alternative means and is, therefore, not the exclusive remedy for nonserious, nonviolent Three Strikes offenders. Under section 1170.126(k) defendants entitled to seek relief under section 1170.126 may access rights or remedies otherwise available. Permitting recall and resentencing of Three Strikes indeterminate sentences under section 1172.75 does not unconstitutionally amend section 1170.126 but rather, incorporates the public safety determination requirements of section 1170.126 into the resentencing process.
When a Three Strikes defendant is resentenced under section 1172.75, the trial court must determine whether resentencing them on their Three Strikes sentences under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Accordingly, we must remand the case to the trial court for its determination on whether resentencing defendant under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If so, the court shall reimpose the indeterminate term. If defendant does not, and he is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence the defendant under the revised provisions of the Reform Act.
Authority:
People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 855, 858-861, 863, 869, 878