In an appeal from the denial of a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court considered hearsay evidence – including the out-of-court statements of non-testifying coparticipants identifying appellant as the shooter – that is now inadmissible post-S.B. 775. Therefore, the court remanded the matter for the trial court to conduct another evidentiary hearing in accordance with the current evidentiary standards of section 1172.6.
[Published Opinion] Penal Code section 1172.75 (the SB 483 resentencing provision for prior-prison-term enhancements) provides that a court conducting a resentencing under the statute “shall apply . . . any . . . changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” The Court of Appeal held that this language requires a court conducting a resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 to apply SB 620 and SB 1393, including where the defendant’s original judgment of conviction became final prior to those bills’ effective dates.
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing, once again, in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which, among other things, created a presumption in favor of a low prison term for certain youthful offenders.
The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to consider resentencing under Penal Code section 654 in light of Assembly Bill 518, and to strike the fees imposed for preparation of appellant’s probation report and booking pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.9.
The Court of Appeal held that the firearm use enhancement (Pen. Code, § 2022.5(a)) attached to appellant’s conviction for shooting at an occupied vehicle must be stricken because firearm use is an element of the offense.
The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s findings that appellants acted with reckless indifference to human life and, therefore, revered the orders denying appellants’ petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s Penal Code section 1172.6 petition and remanded the matter to the superior court for further proceedings in light of Senate Bill 775.
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term where the defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due to the recent statutory amendments to Penal Code section 654, which now affords trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment (instead of having to choose the one that provided for the longest potential term of imprisonment).
In light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal reversed the denial of appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 because the denial was based on the jury findings that appellant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life while engaged in the commission of felonies, which resulted in the two killings for which he was convicted, but those findings were rendered years before the Supreme Court clarified the law of felony murder liability in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522.