Tag Archives: Recall of sentence or resentencing

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000972

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The $300 restitution fine the court imposed at the defendant’s resentencing must be vacated pursuant to section 1465.9(d), because more than 10 years have elapsed since the trial court imposed the original fine in 1996.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

The restitution fine must be vacated because more than 10 years have elapsed since the original imposition of the fine, and reimposition of the fine in a different amount at a section 1172.75 resentencing does not restart section 1465.9(d)’s 10-year clock.

Authority:

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600–601 [under language of sec. 1465.9(d), resentencing does not restart the 10-year clock], review granted on different issue on Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000971

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution fines imposed more than 10 years prior to the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 must be vacated.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Vicarious liability

Case 000967

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the denial of his petition for relief under section 1172.6 of the Penal Code after an evidentiary hearing. The trial court’s finding that appellant was a direct aider and abettor for purposes of implied malice murder is not supported by substantial evidence.

We reverse the denial and remand this matter with directions to vacate appellant’s murder conviction and to resentence him in accordance with section 1172.6(e).

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted SB 1437 in 2018, abolishing the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases of murder and limiting the application of the felony-murder doctrine.

The legislation bars murder convictions premised on any theory of imputed malice unless the People also prove that the nonkiller defendant personally acted with the intent to kill or was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. S

pecifically, the Legislature amended section 188 to require that, when the felony-murder rule does not apply, a principal in the crime of murder shall act with malice aforethought and malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

Authority:

PEN 188

PEN 189

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843

Second Holding:

Section 1172.6 contains the procedure for vacating the murder convictions of defendants who could no longer be convicted because of the amendments to section 188 and 189. If a prima facie case is made—that is, if the petitioner is not ineligible as a matter of law—the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.

At the evidentiary hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder” under the law as amended by the changes to sections 188 and 189.

If the prosecution does not meet this burden, the prior conviction, and any allegations and enhancements attached to the conviction, shall be vacated and the petitioner shall be resentenced on the remaining charges in the same manner as if the petitioner had not previously been sentenced, provided that the new sentence is not greater than the initial sentence.

Where the murder was charged generically, and the target offense was not charged, the conviction shall be redesignated as the target offense or underlying felony for resentencing purposes.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 543

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 474, fn. 5 [What matters for purposes of subdivision (e)’s requirement that the underlying felony or target offense was not charged is that the defendant was neither convicted of the underlying felony or target offense nor was either crime actually litigated]

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s findings for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Vargas (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 943, 951

Fourth Holding:

Direct aiding and abetting remains a valid theory of murder liability after SB 1437. It is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea.

In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of the life-endangering act.

For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life-endangering act.

Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act.

The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 546

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990–991

Garcia v. Superior Court (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1022

Fifth Holding:

The record here may support the finding that appellant had the requisite mens rea, but it does not show the actus reus required for direct aiding and abetting.

The co-defendant perpetrator shot the victim in the chest to free the defendant from the victim’s grasp.

It is too far of a stretch to consider the defendant’s circumstance of being physically restrained to be an act of his that aided the commission of the perpetrator’s fatal shooting, even if the defendant wanted the perpetrator to shoot the victim so he could be freed. Nothing in the record shows that the defendant told the perpetrator to shoot, or acted at all to facilitate the shooting—aside from his planning and participation in the underlying robbery.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712 [An aider and abettor must do something and have a certain mental state]

Sixth Holding:

Although direct aiding and abetting liability has been extended to cases where someone has a legal duty to act but fails to do so, we are unaware of any such case outside the context of parent-child or caregiver relationships.

Authority:

People v. Werntz (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1093, 1101

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 312

People v. Zemek (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 313, 339

Seventh Holding:

We do not see fit to remand for reconsideration of the defendant’s liability for felony murder because the trial court expressly rejected that possibility.

We instead remand for the trial court to vacate appellant’s murder conviction, and to redesignate the conviction as the underlying felony or felonies consistent with section 1172.6(e).

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 477 [declining to remand where it would be an idle act as shown by the trial court’s statement]

People v. Tyus (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 798, 817 [reversing trial court’s decision to simply dismiss the case after vacating a manslaughter conviction from a plea; the trial court was required to redesignate the conviction as an underlying felony]

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000965

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: Alas, this is yet another “not a win.” But it is yet another instance of an error in the abstract of judgment.)

The defendant was resentenced under section 1172.75. The abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement and must be corrected. Further, the trial court failed to recalculate the defendant’s actual custody credits from the date of his arrest to the date of resentencing.

First Holding:

The amended abstract of judgment fails to reflect that the trial court sentenced the defendant to two consecutive 25-year to life terms for burglary and robbery, plus a three-year enhancement on the robbery count under section 12022.7, a stayed, three-year enhancement on the burglary count under section 12022.7, and concurrent five-year enhancements under section 667(a) on both the robbery and burglary counts. We will direct the trial court to correct this error.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.]

Second Holding:

The trial court also failed to recalculate the defendant’s actual custody credits from the date of his arrest to the date of resentencing. A court that modifies a defendant’s sentence must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody. The court must also calculate conduct credits for the period before the original sentencing hearing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41 [under section 2900.1, the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence, should have determined all actual days defendant had spent in custody and awarded such credits in the new abstract of judgment]

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 673

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case 000959

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to recalculate his custody credits and the amended abstract of judgment reflects the incorrect amount of conduct credit. The abstract of judgment must be amended to accurately reflect defendant’s custody credits and his restitution fine must be vacated due to recent amendments to section 1465.9.

First Holding:

The trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Second Holding:

In cases where there is no factual dispute as to the dates of custody and the calculation is merely arithmetical, the defendant should not be deprived of credit to which he or she is entitled merely because trial counsel made a mistake.

Authority:

People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 959

People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects that the conduct credit days ordered at the original sentencing hearing was 40 days instead of the 70 days actually granted. The abstract must be corrected to reflect the 70 days pre-sentence conduct credit.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 981, 993

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 74–75

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), providing that any portion of a restitution fine under section 1465.9 that is not paid within 10 years must be vacated.

Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. The restitution fine was originally imposed in 2007, and defendant was resentenced over 18 years later. We therefore vacate the fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1066

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000957

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be amended to show that the restitution fine was vacated and the trial court security fee was stayed. We also order corrections on the minute order from the resentencing hearing.

First Holding:

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court suspended or stayed any unpaid amounts of the previously imposed court fees and the restitution fine. In contrast, the abstract of judgment filed after the resentencing hearing erroneously showed the trial court imposed the restitution fine of $10,000 and the court security fee of $20.

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. Further, the minute order reflects that the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, whereas he was actually convicted of murder in the first degree.

The minute order also must be amended.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

Second Holding:

Further, although the trial court intended to stay or suspend any unpaid balance of the restitution fine, that fine must be vacated because it was imposed more than 10 years earlier and the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect that it has been vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000955

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court should have stricken the restitution fine, as it was more than 10 years old.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), providing that any portion of a restitution fine under section 1465.9 not paid within 10 years must be vacated. Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1066

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 000951

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand from the Supreme Court, we reconsider our earlier decision denying relief on the defendant’s appeal from the denial of his petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. We reverse the lower court’s denial and remand for the court to conduct a full evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6.

(Gary note: The Court of Appeal earlier had concluded that the defendant is not eligible to petition for relief under section 1172.6, because he could have raised the issue on direct appeal. The Supreme Court granted review and held it pending its opinion in People v. Lopez. Once that was decided–holding in a case with a similar procedural posture that Lopez was not ineligible despite not raising the issue on his direct appeal–it returned this case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with the Lopez decision.)

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 1437, effective January 1, 2019, which among other things amended the definition of felony murder in section 189. This amended felony-murder rule restricted culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life unless the victim was a peace officer.

SB 1437 also added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts, if, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to the law wrought by SB 1437.

SB 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.6 further to expand eligibility for resentencing to persons convicted of murder pursuant to a theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Third Holding:

The jury instructions permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty by imputing malice to him as an accomplice rather than finding that he shared the principal’s intent and therefore independently harbored malice. The ambiguous instruction couches direct aiding and abetting liability in terms of the aider and abettor knowing the perpetrator intended to commit the crime, and the aider and abettor of implied malice murder need not intend the commission of the crime of murder. It conveyed that the defendant need only intend the commission of the perpetrator’s act, the natural and probable consequences of which are dangerous to human life, intentionally aid in the commission of that act and do so with conscious disregard for human life.

(Gary note: Presumably because the appellate court had gone through the review of the case law in the proceedings before it went up to the Supreme Court and came back down, there was little full discussion of the problem with the instruction. Powell, relied on by the court, does address the aiding and abetting issue, and Reyes (whose citation I listed below but was not cited in this opinion) approved the reasoning of Powell that, for aiding and abetting murder liability, the relevant act is the act that proximately causes death.

(The court remanded to the lower court to hold an evidentiary hearing, at which it will be determined whether the defendant can be found guilty under current law.)

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 714

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658-668

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-992

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000945

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by finding the defendant’s prior conviction for gang participation constituted a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. The true findings on the prior strike conviction and prior serious felony conviction are vacated and the case is remanded.

First Holding:

The trial court agreed with the prosecution that AB 333 was not before the court for consideration at the trial on whether the defendant suffered a prior strike conviction and a serious felony conviction. he court declined to consider the effect of AB 333 on the prior conviction and found true that the defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction.

This was error. AB 333 applies to the determination of whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious or violent felony. The true findings that the defendant suffered a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction are vacated and the matter is remanded.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 608

Second Holding:

On remand, if the People decide not to retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of such a retrial, Jones will be entitled to a full resentencing. The court has a duty to ensure that all components of a sentence are authorized by the law and the facts at the time any new sentence is imposed.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.]

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 206

 

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000940

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition for recall under section 1172.6, challenging his convictions for murder. The petition was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. The opinion noted that the defendant had not challenged his convictions for attempted murder. The defendant then filed a section petition to challenge his convictions of attempted murder in light of legislation enacted to encompass attempted murder under section 1172.6. The trial court summarily denied that petition on the grounds that he had already filed a petition that had been denied.

That was error.

First Holding:

On January 1, 2019, SB. 1437 eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder and limited the scope of the felony murder rule. SB 1437 also created the resentencing procedure at issue here. The defendant filed his first section 1172.6 petition seeking resentencing of his conviction for second degree murder pursuant to the changes to the law effectuated by SB 1437.

On January 1, 2022, while the defendant’s first petition was pending, SB 775 further amended the Penal Code to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a theory of liability for attempted murder.

Authority:

SB 1437

SB 775

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

The defendant’s first petition sought resentencing of the murder conviction only. This court expressly did not consider the attempted murder convictions as they had not been presented for resentencing in the trial court.

The denial of the first petition did not prevent the defendant from subsequently seeking resentencing of the attempted murder convictions once that relief became available due to changes in the law. The second petition was not the same as the first.

We therefore reverse the trial court order denying the defendant’s second petition for resentencing. On remand, the trial court must appoint counsel for the defendant and conduct further proceedings under section 1172.6 as to his attempted murder convictions.

Authority:

People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 949–951

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000937

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal by the People following the resentencing of the defendant under section 1172.75, we affirm the lower court’s granting of a new trial on the gang-related special circumstances and gang enhancement allegations in light of AB 333.

First Holding:

The People contend the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for new trial because the evidence at trial demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the instructional error created by the passage of AB 333.

The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and its decision will be disturbed only for clear abuse of that discretion. The People recognize this general rule, but contend independent review is more fitting given that the court below was not the original trial judge and based its review on a cold transcript and exhibits.

Authority:

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1260

Second Holding:

Presumptions on appeal are in favor of the order, and the appellate court does not independently redetermine the question whether an error was prejudicial. As our Supreme Court explained in Ault, the trial court’s order granting a new trial will not be disturbed if fairly debatable, even if a reviewing court itself, addressing the issues de novo, would not have found a basis for reversal. We will review the trial court’s order for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1262-1263

Third Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, which became effective January 1, 2022. The new legislation made several changes to the definition of section 186.22 gang enhancements.

First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang. (

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be ‘more than reputational.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Fourth Holding:

Although AB 333 does not expressly address the gang-murder special circumstance set forth in section 190.2(a)(22), the latter statute defines criminal street gang by express cross-reference to section 186.22(f). The same is true for a firearm enhancement alleged pursuant to section 12022.53(e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 461

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746

Fifth Holding:

When a substantive change occurs in the elements of an offense and the jury is not instructed as to the proper elements, the omission implicates the defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, and reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same in the absence of the error. To prove harmless error under the Chapman standard, it is not enough to show that substantial or strong evidence existed to support a conviction under the correct instructions. Rather, the question is whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

(Gary note: The court then proceeded to examine the written opinion of the trial judge, and discussed the judge’s reasoning and statements of findings that led the trial court to the conclusion that a new trial was warranted. Those facts and that analysis are beyond what these summaries are designed to present, because the facts relied on in an unpublished opinion cannot be related to control a result in another case, and neither can the trial court’s reasoning be cited as authority, persuasitive or otherwise.)

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 504

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 668

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 449

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 417

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

Duty of the court, Evidence, Sentencing

Case 000933

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing under section 1172.75, it was error to deny the defendant’s motion for discovery of Brady materials that he sought to prepare his case for the recall hearing.

We remand the case for the trial court to review the sought Brady materials to determine whether anything exists that must be provided to the defendant. If so, then it should conduct a new resentencing hearing. If it determines that there is nothing of Brady material nature to be disclosed, it may deny the request, state its reasons, and reinstate the judgment.

Also, the trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.

First Holding:

In the course of the proceedings, the district attorney’s office notified the defendant’s attorney that it had requested Brady information from the law enforcement agency involved in the original investigation of the crimes leading to the defendant’s conviction. The officer’s personnel file may contain information that is potentially exculpatory or may be used for impeachment. The defendant then filed a Pitchess motion to obtain the Brady material. The trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.

Under Brady and its progeny, the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose to the defense material exculpatory evidence, including potential impeaching evidence. Although Brady is essentially a trial right, courts have acknowledged that the People’s obligations under Brady are ongoing, even postjudgment.

Authority:

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83

In re Jenkins (2023) 14 Cal.5th 493, 504

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1058–1059

In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1246 [Even after a conviction, the prosecutor is bound by the ethics of his office to inform the appropriate authority of information that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction]

Canion v. Cole (2005) 210 Ariz. 598, 599 [the state has a continuing Brady duty to disclose evidence that comes to its attention after sentencing] cited with approval in Jenkins, at p. 505

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

Second Holding:

In Pitchess, the California Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant may, in some circumstances, compel the discovery of evidence in the arresting law enforcement officer’s personnel file that is relevant to the defendant’s ability to defend against a criminal charge. In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding what had come to be known as ‘Pitchess motions’ through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045.

Authority:

PEN 832.7

PEN 832.8

EVID 1043-1045

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1052

Third Holding:

A Pitchess motion may be used to obtain Brady material contained in a peace officer’s confidential personnel file.

However, because the Pitchess process operates in parallel with Brady and does not prohibit the disclosure of Brady information, all information that the trial court finds to be exculpatory and material under Brady must be disclosed, notwithstanding the limitations of the Pitchess process.

Authority:

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1055

People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 720

Fourth Holding:

Although the proceeding below was a resentencing hearing, Brady material may have some relevance. Where, as here, section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors. This entails applying any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3

Fifth Holding:

Under the resentencing procedures set forth in section 1172.1(a)(5), the trial court must consider evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice, which may include evidence that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated in the proceedings related to the conviction or sentence at issue, and any other evidence that undermines the integrity of the underlying conviction or sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(5)

Sixth Holding:

Further, at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court may exercise its power under section 1385 and Romero to dismiss a prior strike conviction in furtherance of justice. When exercising this power, the court may consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of a defendant’s conviction.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361–364

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 586

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497