Skip to content
Name: People v. Hubbard
Case #: C082799
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/24/2018

On remand for a Proposition 36 resentencing following People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674, trial court erred when it concluded it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider other aspects of defendant’s sentence, such as striking his prior strikes. Hubbard was sentenced to an indeterminate life term under the Three Strikes law in 1996. After the passage of Proposition 36 in 2012, he filed a petition to recall the sentence, which the trial court denied because one of his offenses (attempted robbery) was a disqualifying serious and violent felony. After initially affirming the trial court’s order, the Court of Appeal ultimately reversed the order denying the petition for Hubbard’s reckless evasion conviction and remanded the case to the trial court based on People v. Johnson, which held that the presence of a conviction of a serious or violent felony does not disqualify an inmate from resentencing under Proposition 36 with respect to a current offense that is neither serious nor violent. The trial court was instructed to determine whether Hubbard would present an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if resentenced. On remand, Hubbard filed a request for discretionary relief under Penal Code section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, urging the court to strike his prior strikes for sentencing purposes. The trial court declined, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider or otherwise resentence defendant with respect to the strike convictions for his attempted robbery charge, based on the limited direction from the Court of Appeal on remand. Hubbard appealed. Held: Remanded for resentencing. When a case is remanded for resentencing by an appellate court, the trial court is entitled to consider the entire sentence and is not limited to merely striking illegal portions. This is known as the “full resentencing rule.” Here, once the trial court recalled Hubbard’s sentence under Proposition 36, the trial court was “entitled to consider the entire sentencing scheme.” (People v. Garner (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118.)

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: