Error and/or relief
The court erred in not conducting a full resentencing on the defendant’s petition for recall under section 1172.75. Remanded for full resentencing.
First Holding:
When a defendant raises both statutory and constitutional bases for their appeal, we do not reach the constitutional grounds if the case can be resolved on statutory grounds. When a defendant appeals the denial of a Marsden motion, the core inquiry is whether the trial court’s ruling violated the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.
Authority:
Swart Enterprises, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 497, 513 [a reviewing court should consider a constitutional question only where essential to the disposition of a case]
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123
People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696
Second Holding:
On the other hand, the scope of a trial court’s application of section 1172.75 is a question of statutory interpretation, which is subject to our de novo review. If that review resolves the appeal, it is dispositive.
Authority:
People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1281–1282
Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230–231 [finding that where statutory and constitutional claims are at issue and resolution of the statutory ground is adequate to resolve the matter, doing so is dispositive]
Third Holding:
The parties disagree about whether defendant forfeited his argument that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a full resentencing under section 1172.75. In the interests of judicial economy, to forestall an ineffective assistance of counsel habeas petition, and to avoid the constitutional issues raised by defendant regarding the performance of his trial counsel, we decline to enforce any forfeiture under the circumstances of this case.
Authority:
People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400
Fourth Holding:
In general, we review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found where the court relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.
Authority:
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323
Fifth Holding:
Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. In such circumstances, we have held that the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.
Authority:
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391
Sixth Holding:
Where an issue on appeal requires that we determine the meaning of a statute, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. In any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. When the language of a statute is clear, we need go no further.
Authority:
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323
People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1421
People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1123 [If no ambiguity appears in the statutory language, we presume that the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute controls]
Seventh Holding:
Section 1172.75 makes any sentence enhancement imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to 667.5(b) legally invalid unless it was imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If the court determines (through the process set forth in the statute) that the defendant’s sentence includes an invalid enhancement, it is required to recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. An eligible defendant under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3 [Where section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors]
People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]