Error and/or relief
The trial court lacked potential information relevant to exercising its discretion at the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new resentencing hearing.
First Holding:
On the date ultimately set for the hearing, the defendant’s attorney informed the court that he did not know the hearing on the petition was going to be held, and he needed a continuance to prepare for presenting mitigating information. The court denied the motion for continuance and held the hearing, striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement but otherwise making no changes to the sentence.
This was error. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. Thus, in a case such as this, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402
People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893
Second Holding:
Section 1172.75 provides that when a court resentences a defendant under the statute, it 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.
The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75(d)(2), (d)(3)
Third Holding:
Section 1385(a) grants the superior court discretion, in furtherance of justice, to order an action to be dismissed. This includes the authority to strike a sentence enhancement. To apply this discretion, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of several mitigating circumstances are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.
Authority:
PEN 1385
People v. Barboza (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 955, 965
Fourth Holding:
We review a trial court’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. One factor to consider is whether a continuance would be useful. Here, a continuance was merited because it would have allowed defense counsel to obtain potential evidence relevant to resentencing regarding childhood trauma and mental capacity.
This was apparently the defendant’s first request for a continuance, and the burden on the court of a continuance was minimal because there would have been no need to reschedule witnesses or consider juror inconvenience.
(Gary note: The appellate court then outlined several factors specific to this defendant that the trial court failed to give any consideration to, leading to the appellate court’s decision to remand. The details are not useful for this summary.)
Because the court lacked evidence of all relevant mitigating factors identified in section 1385, we must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same conclusion even had it considered the mitigating factors.
Authority:
People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118
People v. Grajeda (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 829, 839–840
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391
Fifth Holding:
Although a court is presumed to have considered all of the relevant factors in the absence of an affirmative record to the contrary, when it expressly states the basis for its decision and declines to consider other factors, we will not infer it weighed the other factors. Because the court expressly considered only the circumstances of the defendant’s crime, we cannot infer that it also considered mitigating circumstances.
Authority:
People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305, 310