Error and/or relief
It was error for the court to impose the normal base term for several of his offenses in addition to the life terms under the Three Strikes law for those same offenses. The court failed to update the credit for time served. And the abstract of judgment misidentifies a second degree robbery as in the first degree, and must be corrected.
First Holding:
Where, as here, a defendant’s current sentence includes prison prior term enhancements rendered invalid under section 1172.75(a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely the striking of newly invalid enhancements.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402
Second Holding:
The Three Strikes law is a penalty provision, not an enhancement. It is not an enhancement because it does not add an additional term of imprisonment to the base term. Instead, it provides for an alternate sentence (25 years to life) when it is proven that the defendant has suffered the requisite number of convictions, prior and present. (At least two prior serious felony convictions, and the current offense being a qualifying offense for invocation of Third Strike sentencing.)
Authority:
People v. Williams (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 733, 744
Third Holding:
Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court.
Authority:
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391
Fourth Holding:
When a trial court pronounces an unauthorized sentence, the sentence may be set aside and is no bar to the imposition of a proper judgment thereafter, even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.
Authority:
People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431–432
People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21
Fifth Holding:
The trial court erred in failing to update his presentence credits at the time of resentencing.
Authority:
PEN 2900.1
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37
Sixth Holding:
The amended abstract of judgment incorrectly lists the defendant’s conviction in count 3 as one for first degree robbery, when in fact the conviction should be identified as one for second degree robbery. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.
(Gary note: Though the court discussed the need for amending the abstract of judgment for various reasons through the opinion, it did not cite authority for its order that it be corrected. There is plenty of authority available, of course. I have set out some cases the court could have drawn from, but there are undoubtedly many others.)
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2