Error and/or relief
In 2024, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent the trial court a letter providing it with authority to resentence defendant pursuant to section 1172.1 in light of the court’s newfound discretion to dismiss prior serious felony enhancements. The court appointed defendant counsel and set the matter for a hearing. After the hearing, the court stated it was not going to exerciseits discretion, that it was leaving the sentence in play as originally sentenced, and it denied the motion.
The trial court erred in denying recall and resentencing without finding that the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18(c), as required to overcome the presumption in favor of recall and resentencing provided for in section 1172.1(b)(2). The trial court failed to understand the proper scope of its discretion in light of the mandated presumption in favor of recall and resentencing. Thus, it abused its discretion in rendering its order denying relief. We deem it appropriate, here, to remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of the CDCR’s recommendation pursuant to section 1172.1.
First Holding:
A court may at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary [of CDCR] or the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody, and provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.
Authority:
PEN 1172.1
Second Holding:
Where such a resentencing request is made, there is now a presumption in favor of recall and resentencing of the defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in 1170.18(c).
Authority:
PEN 1172.1(b)(2)
People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040
Third Holding:
“Unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is defined as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). Those offenses—known as super strikes—include, among others, any homicide and any serious or violent felony offense punishable in California by life imprisonment or death.
Authority:
PEN 1170.18(c)
People v. Braggs (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 809, 818
People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 351
Fourth Holding:
Where the CDCR recommends recall and resentencing, the court is also now required to hold a hearing (unless the parties otherwise stipulate), state on the record its reasons for its decision, provide notice to the defendant, and appoint counsel for the defendant. Furthermore, when recalling and resentencing pursuant to its provisions, the court shall apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion.
Authority:
PEN 1172.1(a)(6)–(8), (b)(1)
People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040
People v. Pierce (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1078
Fifth Holding:
We review a trial court’s resentencing determination for an abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. An abuse of discretion is shown when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard.
Authority:
People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 858, 863
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449
People v. Hall (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1264
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 231
People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156–158 [court abused its discretion in granting motion for new trial based on erroneous legal standards]
In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 159–160, 167 [juvenile court abused discretion in applying incorrect standard in disqualifying minor’s counsel]