Skip to content
Name: People v. Kimble (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 582
Case #: C097389
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/14/2023
Subsequent History: Opinion depublished and matter transferred to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration on 10/25/2023 (S281526)
Summary

A resentencing hearing to strike prior prison term enhancements (Senate Bill No. 483) does not entitle the defendant to also seek relief under the Three Strikes Reform Act (Prop. 36). Kimble is serving a life sentence under the Three Strikes law. In 2013, his petition for resentencing under Prop. 36 was denied based on a finding he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if resentenced. In July 2022, the trial court appointed counsel for Kimble pursuant to SB 483 and he filed a motion to strike his prior prison term enhancement, which was granted. He appealed the denial of his request to resentence him as a second strike offender at the SB 483 hearing. Held: Affirmed. Effective January 2022, SB 483 invalidated prior prison term enhancements. It added Penal Code section 1171.1 (now 1172.75), which provides a resentencing structure for defendants serving a term that includes a prior prison term enhancement. That section provides that the trial court should apply any other ameliorative changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing. However, this provision does not overcome the retroactive resentencing requirements of Prop. 36, which is conditioned on considerations of public safety. A Prop. 36 resentencing applied directly as part of an SB 483 hearing would “circumvent the Reform Act’s petition and recall process and effectively mandate that the trial court resentence defendant as a second strike offender, without regard to the potential risk he poses.”