Error and/or relief
The defendant’s Penal Code section 1172.75 petition for resentencing asked the trial court to strike certain sentencing enhancements that were no longer valid under current law and to exercise its discretion to strike other enhancements and prior strike convictions. The trial court held a resentencing hearing, struck the invalid enhancements, but declined to further reduce defendant’s sentence. We reverse for some certain conceded errors in the pronouncement of sentence, including with respect to custody credits, but otherwise affirm.
First Holding:
A trial court conducting a resentencing under section 1172.75 has discretion to dismiss a “strike” allegation under the Three Strikes law. There was no abuse of discretion here.
Authority:
PEN 1385
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 504
People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161
Second Holding:
The trial court calculated certain elements of the defendant’s sentence by subtracting the one-year prior prison term enhancements from his original sentence as opposed to the later sentence imposed on remand following a determination that it was error to sentence on two–rather than just one–of the counts because of Penal Code section 654. There was some further ambiguity in the sentence imposed at the section 1172.75 hearing. The matter must be remanded to the trial court to strike the prior prison term enhancements on Counts Two and Three, to clarify the sentence on Count Three remains stayed, and to clarify the status of the prior serious felony enhancement on Count Two.
Authority:
People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 838-839
Third Holding:
The trial court improperly delegated calculation of his custody credits to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Authority:
PC 2900.1
PC 2900.5
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23-24