Skip to content
Name: People v. Hall (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1084
Case #: A165406
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/13/2023

Senate Bill No. 567’s amendments to Penal Code section 1170(b)(1) do not require the prosecution to “plead” aggravating factors that it intends to urge at sentencing. In 2022, defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288(a)). At sentencing, the court found no mitigating factors and seven aggravating factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 4.421, and sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison, which included the upper term on one of the two counts. On appeal, defendant argued the aggravating factors found…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270
Case #: C097966
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/19/2023

A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 (Senate Bill No. 483) if their now-invalid prior prison term enhancements were imposed and stayed. In 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of possession for sale of a controlled substance and he was sentenced to 25 years to life as a three strikes offender. The trial court also imposed and stayed four prior prison term enhancements. In 2023, after referral from CDCR, the trial court held a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. The court struck the stayed prison priors but declined to conduct a full resentencing hearing, finding that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wiley (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 676
Case #: A165613
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 11/29/2023

Trial court did not err under Penal Code section 1170 (as amended by Senate Bill No. 567) in imposing an upper term sentence after finding that certified records of convictions showed defendant’s crimes were increasing in seriousness and that he was not successful on probation. Wiley was on probation for a criminal threats conviction and committed a new offense. In sentencing, the trial court relied on certified rap sheets, finding that, beyond the mere fact of the convictions, the rap sheets showed two aggravating factors: that his crimes were increasing in seriousness and that he had failed to succeed on…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Evers (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 551
Case #: A164989
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 11/28/2023

The forfeiture of defendant’s ability to pay challenge to his restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4(b)) was not negated by the section 1237.2 motions appellate counsel filed in the trial court. At sentencing after defendant’s felony plea, the court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and imposed but suspended a $10,000 parole restitution fine. The court declined trial counsel’s request to reduce the restitution fines to $7,500 based on the statutory formula in section 1202.4(b)(2). Defendant appealed, arguing the restitution fines were unconstitutional under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. Prior to filing the opening brief, appellate counsel sent two informal letter…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960
Case #: D082219
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/08/2023

The full resentencing procedure in Penal Code section 1172.75 (Senate Bill No. 483) applies to all sentences, including stipulated sentences imposed as part of a plea bargain, and the prosecution may not withdraw from the plea bargain if the court imposes a lesser sentence on resentencing. In 2016, defendant pled guilty to several felonies in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 12 years. In October of 2022, defendant was referred by CDCR for resentencing under SB 483. The trial court struck defendant’s prior prison term enhancement but refused to conduct a full resentencing based on defendant’s stipulated sentence. Defendant appealed. Held: Reversed…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 978
Case #: B329457
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 12/08/2023

Penal Code section 1172.75 (Senate Bill No. 483) does not require the trial court to modify a third strike sentence where the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.126 (Proposition 36) was already denied on public safety grounds. In 2009, defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law based on his conviction for spousal battery (which is not a serious or violent felony) plus three years for his prior prison term enhancements. In 2013, Guevara petitioned for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36) and the trial court denied relief, finding that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663
Case #: D081230
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/29/2023

The trial court had jurisdiction to resentence defendant under Senate Bill No. 483 even when he had another appeal pending. In 2013, Velasco was sentenced to several felonies and a prior prison term enhancement. On August 2, 2022, he filed a habeas petition in the superior court requesting relief under SB 483. The trial court denied the petition on the grounds that section 1172.75(b) sets forth a specific timeline for granting relief to eligible inmates. He filed an appeal from this denial (case no. D080603). However, the trial court then scheduled a resentencing hearing pursuant to SB 483. At the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Nunez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 362
Case #: G061346
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 11/20/2023

Provocation to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder must come from the victim, not a third party. After hearing a rumor that the victim had raped a child, and being encouraged to exact revenge, defendants Gallegos and Nunez chased and beat the victim with metal pipes, and Gallegos stabbed him with a knife six times. In response to a jury question, the trial court instructed that in order for provocation to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder, the provocation must come from the victim, not a third party. Gallegos was convicted of first degree murder and related…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mazur (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 438
Case #: D081331
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/21/2023

Dismissal of an enhancement under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(B) or (c)(2)(C) is not mandatory when the court fails to make a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety. In 2017, defendant was sentenced to several felonies and a five-year white-collar enhancement under section 186.11(a)(2). At a second resentencing hearing, after Senate Bill No. 81 went into effect, the court reimposed the five-year enhancement, for a total sentence of 23 years. On appeal, defendant argued that dismissal was mandatory because section 1385(c)(2)(C) applies and the trial court did not find that dismissal would endanger public safety. Held: Affirmed. Section…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276
Case #: H049980
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/18/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 11/8/2023

Defendant is entitled to a full resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 based on prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5(b)) that were imposed but stayed. In 2018, defendant was sentenced to 34 years in prison on 18 drug- and gang-related offenses. The Court of Appeal remanded with instructions for the trial court to strike prior prison term enhancements and to exercise discretion as to whether to strike a prior serious felony enhancement. After the case was remanded, several more changes in the sentencing laws took effect. However, the trial court declined to conduct a full resentencing to apply…

View Full Summary