Error and/or relief
Because the superior court applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether to dismiss the five-year enhancement, we reverse the judgment and direct the court to exercise its discretion whether to strike that enhancement and to resentence the defendant.
First Holding:
By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.
Authority:
People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223
Second Holding:
We conclude the superior court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard in denying the defendant’s request to dismiss the five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony. Section 1385 provides that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. It also provides that, in exercising its discretion, the court must consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove any of nine listed mitigating factors, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. If the court does not find dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the court must consider whether the defendant has presented evidence of one or more of the mitigating factors listed in section 1385. If so, the court must engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the [nine] enumerated mitigating factors and must dismiss the enhancement unless the court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.
Authority:
PEN 1385
People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033, 1036
Third Holding:
Without the benefit of Walker, decided several months after the resentencing, the superior court did not apply the correct legal standard. It did not find that reducing the sentence by five years would endanger public safety. Nor did it consider dismissing the prior conviction that was more than five years old, instead relying on the fact that the original court found the prior conviction to be true. By deferring to the original trial court on whether to strike the serious felony conviction enhancement, the superior court ignored section 1172.75’s mandate to apply changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion. In 2015 the trial court had to impose the five-year prior serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), but effective 2019, SB 1393 gave trial courts discretion to strike that enhancement under section 1385. In addition, section 1172.75 authorized the superior court to consider postconviction factors, such as the defendant’s disciplinary record and rehabilitation while in prison, his age, and his physical condition—factors not available to the trial court in 2015.
Authority:
People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 968 [simply striking the one-year enhancement imposed under the repealed portion of former section 667.5(b) deprived the defendant of his right to full resentencing under the changes in the law]
People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 567 [court erred by failing to provide the defendant with a full resentencing hearing, meaning a hearing in which he could have sought further sentencing relief under at least two other statutes that were enacted after his conviction]
People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361
Fourth Holding:
The superior court’s error was prejudicial because the record does not clearly indicate the court would have reached the same conclusion had it applied the correct legal standard.
Authority:
People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [where the trial court fails to exercise informed discretion, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [same]
People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [remand was required where the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive, a full resentencing under the terms of section 1172.75, including the application of any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion]
Fifth Holding:
On remand, the superior court should consider whether dismissing the prior serious felony enhancement and reducing the defendant’s sentence from 25 years six months to 20 years six months would endanger public safety. If the court does not make that finding, it should dismiss the enhancement, unless it finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that neutralize the great weight of any applicable mitigating circumstance enumerated in section 1385(c)(2), including that the enhancement was based on a prior conviction that was more than five years old.
Authority:
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 230-231 [in assessing whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the trial court should have considered the date on which the defendant could be released if the enhancement was dismissed, not only whether the defendant currently posed a danger to the public]
Sixth Holding:
We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions in a section 1172.75 resentencing proceeding for abuse of discretion.
Authority:
People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874
People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855-856
Seventh Holding:
In reviewing matters of statutory interpretation we review the trial court’s decision de novo.
Authority:
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323
People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 804 [The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo]
