Error and/or relief
The trial court did not understand that it had the jurisdiction to strike prior strikes at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. Remanded for the court to consider how to exercise its discretion. It must also recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served.
First Holding:
Because a trial court’s power under section 1385(a) to dismiss or strike a strike prior is independent of either the Three Strikes law or the subsequent Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either.
Authority:
PEN 1385
People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 362
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497
Second Holding:
The full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.
Authority:
People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425
Third Holding:
Section 1172.75 is a permissible alternative resentencing method for third strike offenders, and upon recall, defendants like the defendant in Guevara were no longer presently serving indeterminate third strike sentences.
Authority:
People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 854
Fourth Holding:
We express no opinion on the merits of the motion, which rest in the trial court’s sound discretion to evaluate.
Authority:
People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377-378
Fifth Holding:
Defendant is entitled to recalculation of custody credits at the close of the hearing, whether the trial court resentences him to 25 years to life or imposes a different sentence.
Authority:
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41