Error and/or relief
The trial court modified the defendant’s sentence only to the extent required under sections 1172.75 and 1170.18, but otherwise left the balance intact, finding that the defendant remained a danger to the public. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the days of actual custody and to correct the abstract of judgment.
First Holding:
Because the sentence was modified under PC 1172.75, the trial court erred in not calculating the actual days in custody.
Authority:
PEN 2900.1
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37
Second Holding:
We review the trial court’s finding that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety under the clear and convincing evidence standard.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75(d)(1)
Third Holding:
The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it is highly probable the facts which he asserts are true.
Authority:
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998
Fourth Holding:
The narrow definition of danger to public safety under PC 1170.18 does not apply to the undefined term of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. [GARY NOTE: after the opinion in this case 000106 was filed, the Supreme Court ruled in Guevara that it was constitutionally necessary to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act’s understanding of the term “unreasonable risk to public safety” within the meaning of section 1170.126 (enacted by initiative) in order to reconcile the application of section 1172.75 (enacted by the Legislature) to those who would otherwise qualify but are serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law (an initiative provision).]
Authority:
People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 374, 374-375
[People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838]Fifth Holding:
The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a determinate term of 14 years instead of 10 years, and it must be corrected. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority, most likely because the error and solution are obvious. There are many relevant cases supporting this holding, some of which I have set out below.]
Authority:
People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938
People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89