PC 1385/SB 81

Name: People v. Grandberry
Case #: B338353
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 01/22/2026

Prior strikes are not “enhancements” whose potential dismissal is subject to PC 1385(c). Instead, consistent with previous court of appeal decisions on the topic, the “Three Strikes” law is an alternative sentencing scheme. Further, defendant’s claim to the contrary was forfeited when not raised in the trial court and the rule of lenity is inapplicable since PC 1385(c) is not ambiguous.

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

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Guevara
Case #: A170530
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/31/2025

Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at PC 1172.75 resentencing. Defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness when he told the court he would file a resentencing brief with a Romero argument, obtained multiple continuances, and then failed to file a brief without good reason despite his representation that he had “more material that [he] had intended to submit to the Court.” Defendant established prejudice where it would have been reasonable for the sentencing court to have dismissed a GBI enhancement or one of defendant’s strike priors.

[Dissenting opinion, J. Fujisaki would have…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Torres
Case #: C100501
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/29/2025

When the underlying base sentence already exceeds 20 years, PC 1385(c)(2)(C) does not weigh in favor of the dismissal of an enhancement, because the enhancement itself must cause the sentence to exceed 20 years to qualify. Based on the plain language of the statute, the court disagreed with defendant’s argument that subdivision (c)(2)(C) applies whenever an enhancement is a component of a sentence that exceeds 20 years. [Editor’s Note: To forestall appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court reached the merits of the claim despite the lack of an objection.]

The full opinion is available here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bravo
Case #: A168580
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/07/2025

Resentencing under PC 1172.75 is available where the PC 667.5(b) enhancement was originally imposed and stayed. Section 1172.75 requires resentencing when a prison prior enhancement is imposed; the court found no good reason to additionally require that the enhancement was executed. (But noting People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, review granted February 21, 2024, S283169.)

Section 1172.75(d)(1)’s mandate that resentencing “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed” was fulfilled even though the defendant received a sentence which totaled same the number of years. Even when a prison prior is stayed and not executed, elimination of the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. O’Bannon
Case #: B327483
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/15/2024

The five-year washout period under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(H), is measured by the date of commission of the current offense, not the date of sentencing. Court of Appeal rejects defendant’s argument that his prior serious felony enhancement (PC 667(a)(1)) should have been subject to dismissal on the ground it was “based on a conviction that is more than five years old” (PC 1385(c)(2)(H)). While defendant argued sentencing date for the current offense should govern the washout period, court holds commission date is the relevant one under PC 1385(c)(2)(H). Although statute and legislative history are silent on which date…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Walker
Case #: S278309
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/15/2024

The CSC holds that under the plain language of PC 1385(c)(2), absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a sentencing court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when present. PC 1385(c)(2), as added by SB 81, provides that a sentencing court in exercising its discretion to dismiss an enhancement shall afford great weight to evidence offered to prove certain enumerated mitigating circumstances, and proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215
Case #: D082058
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/27/2024

The trial court prejudicially abused its discretion when it solely focused on whether defendant currently poses a danger in determining whether dismissal of defendant's firearm enhancement (PC 12022.53(d)) would endanger public safety pursuant PC 1385(c)(2). Although current danger is an appropriate factor to consider, the crucial part of the inquiry is consideration of defendant's release date if the enhancement were dismissed. Additionally, for a defendant serving a lengthy indeterminate sentence, the trial court should consider that defendant's release is contingent on the Board of Parole Hearings' review and assessment of defendant's…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015
Case #: S275940
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/29/2024

After striking a PC 12022.53 enhancement in the interest of justice, a trial court has discretion to impose an uncharged, lesser included enhancement located elsewhere in the Penal Code. While PC 12022.53 applies to specified felonies involving the use of firearms, PC 12022 applies more broadly to personal use of a firearm during any felony, and PC 12022 casts an even wider net. In People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, the court held that PC 12022.53(h) gives the trial court discretion to, after striking a PC 12022.53 enhancement under PC 1385, impose a lesser included, uncharged PC 12022.53 enhancement when…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324
Case #: A166011
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 03/28/2024

Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation where he methodically pumped and aimed a shotgun at two peace officers. Serrano went on a crime spree that culminated in his shooting a rifle at two uniformed officers who approached him following a car crash. He was found guilty by jury of two counts of premeditated attempted murder of a peace officer, among other crimes. Serrano appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence supporting the findings of premeditation and deliberation. Held: Affirmed. After the considering the categories of evidence set forth in People v. Anderson (1968) 70…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McDowell (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1147
Case #: G062263
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 02/23/2024

Senate Bill No. 81 does not apply to the alternative punishment for human trafficking of a minor under Penal Code section 236.1(c)(2), as it is an alternative penalty provision and not an enhancement. Defendant was convicted of human trafficking of a minor (§ 236.1(c)) and other offenses, and sentenced to 23 years to life. This included an indeterminate term of 15 years to life under the alternative penalty provision of section 236.1(c)(2), which deals with human trafficking of a minor with aggravating circumstances. On appeal, defendant argued that SB 81 required the trial court to dismiss his elevated sentence of…

View Full Summary