Skip to content
Name: People v. Williams
Case #: E074162
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/17/2021

Before recalling a sentence under Penal Code section 1170, the court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, and set forth the reasons for its choice of sentence. In 2019, CDCR sent a letter to the sentencing judge and recommended that the judge recall defendant's sentence under section 1170, subdivision (d), to consider striking the five-year enhancement originally imposed under Penal Code section 667 for a prior serious felony conviction, now that the law had been changed to restore the court's discretion to do so. Copies of the recommendation and supporting documents were sent…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lopez
Case #: B256146
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/25/2016

Juvenile nonhomicide offenders who were originally sentenced to LWOP can petition for recall of their sentences under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) even if their LWOP sentences were reduced pursuant to Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48. In 1993, Lopez and Chacon were sentenced to LWOP for an aggravated kidnapping they committed when they were 16 years old. They filed habeas petitions after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Graham, which held that the Eighth Amendment barred the imposition of LWOP on juvenile nonhomicide offenders. The trial court granted their petitions and reduced the LWOP sentences to life with…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gibson
Case #: E062624
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/10/2016

Trial court improperly limited the availability of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) resentencing to juvenile murder defendants who were not the actual killer, but the error was harmless. In 1996 Gibson, who was 17 years old at the time of the offense, was tried as an adult and convicted of first degree murder with a felony murder special circumstance. He was sentenced to LWOP. In 2014, he filed a petition for resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d)(2)). The court denied the petition, concluding that section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) applied only to a defendant who was not the actual…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Amaya
Case #: E060218
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/11/2015

Trial court's order mistakenly granting Proposition 36 relief to a petitioner who was ineligible is void and petitioner was properly resentenced to term of 25 years to life. In 2008, a jury found Amaya guilty of attempted extortion (Pen. Code, § 524) and found true a gang allegation (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)). Because Amaya had two prior strikes, he was sentenced to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court did not impose any term for the gang allegation and it was not reflected in the abstract…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Loper
Case #: S211840
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/05/2015

Prisoner may appeal order denying compassionate release under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (e). Loper was sentenced in 2011 to six years in state prison. In 2012, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended that Loper's sentence be recalled pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (e) and that he be granted compassionate release due to his medical condition. The superior court denied CDCR's recommendation. Loper, but not CDCR, appealed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial court's denial was a nonappealable order. The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gutierrez
Case #: S206365
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 05/05/2014

Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b) does not create a presumption in favor of an LWOP sentence for 16- or 17-year-old offenders who are convicted of special circumstance murder. Two 17-year-old offenders were sentenced to LWOP under section 190.5, subdivision (b). In two separate cases under review, each defendant claimed that the statute creates an unconstitutional presumption in favor of an LWOP sentence for a 16- or 17-year-old offender convicted of special circumstance murder. Held: Remanded to allow the trial courts to exercise the full scope of their sentencing authority. Section 190.5, subdivision (b) provides that the penalty for…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Conley
Case #: C070272
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/02/2013
Subsequent History: Review granted 8/14/2013: S211275

Defendant whose appeal was pending when the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36) went into effect was not entitled to be resentenced under amended Penal Code section 1170.12 but may petition for recall of sentence. After the court filed its decision affirming Conley's conviction for multiple vehicle offenses with two prior strikes, Conley filed a petition for rehearing seeking the benefit of the modification of the Three Strikes law via Proposition 36, relying on In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740. The appellate court found that Conley would not have been subject to a 25-to-life sentence…

View Full Summary
Name: Martinez v. Board of Parole Hearings
Case #: C061031
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/06/2010

Under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (e)(1) (compassionate release), if the inmate meets the criteria, the Board of Parole Hearings must recommend recall of sentence and release. Martinez was convicted of kidnap and violent sex crimes and sentenced to 157-years-to-life in state prison. In the third year of his sentence, he was assaulted and stabbed by another inmate, with his spinal cord lacerated and resulting quadriplegia. The prognosis was that he would be permanently paralyzed and now requires 24-hour lifetime care. Under section 1170, subdivision (e)(1), he asked the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to recommend recall of his…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Turrin
Case #: C059722
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/20/2009

Absent a qualifying exception, the trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant after execution of sentence has begun. This includes modifying defendant's restitution fines. Appellant was sentenced to state prison, with the minute order remanding him to custody of the sheriff forthwith. Ten months later, while serving his prison sentence, appellant filed a pro per motion in the trial court requesting reduction of the imposed restitution fines, claiming an inability to pay. The motion was dismissed and appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal noted that absent the following exceptions, the trial court loses jurisdiction to modify a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Nelms
Case #: C055100
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/14/2008

An appellate court may decline to dismiss an appeal upon filing of abandonment. While the appeal was pending in Nelms's case, the trial court granted his motion to recall the sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The trial court also granted Nelms's motion to dismiss his smuggling conviction. It then resentenced Nelms on the remaining count. The appellate court received no notice of the subsequent trial court proceedings and issued an opinion reversing the conviction on the smuggling charge because of instructional error. It also remanded the case to the trial court…

View Full Summary