In 2022, following the enactment of what is now Penal Code section 1172.75, the trial court recalled appellant’s sentence and struck his one-year prior prison term enhancement, but did not resentence appellant. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for a full resentencing. Although appellant asserted that the trial court should have considered whether to dismiss his two prior strike convictions under the recently enacted provisions of section 1385, subdivision (c), the Court of Appeal held that subdivision (c) applies only to enhancements, not to alternative sentencing schemes such as the Three Strikes law. On remand, the prosecution argued that with regard to the trial court’s ability to dismiss the prior strike convictions, this court’s opinion “said that is not an option . . . .” The trial court said it was “mindful” of this court’s decision, it was relying on other decisions like People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, it was “following” this court’s decision, and “[a]ccordingly,” it “will not consider” dismissing appellant’s prior strike convictions.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court was unaware of the full scope of its sentencing discretion. The prior opinion in this case, and the decision in Burke, did not address all the provisions of section 1385, and cases are not authority for propositions not considered. (See People v. Williams (2004) 34 Cal.4th 397, 405.) The record was not clear whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence even if it had been aware of its discretion. (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391.) The matter was remanded for full resentencing.