From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Caldwell

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Jun 27, 2024
No. B332616 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2024)

Opinion

B332616

06-27-2024

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICKY GLEN CALDWELL, Defendant and Appellant.

Zachary C. Skidelsky for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Blake Armstrong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. YA051163, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Reversed.

Zachary C. Skidelsky for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Blake Armstrong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

ROTHSCHILD, P.J.

In 2003, the trial court sentenced Ricky Glen Caldwell (Caldwell)-a third strike offender-to 28 years to life in prison. In addition to a 25-year-to-life base term under California's" Three Strikes" law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), the sentence included three one-year enhancements for prior prison terms imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).

All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Nearly 20 years later, the Legislature enacted section 1172.75 (former § 1171.1). That section invalidates certain section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements, including those imposed in Caldwell's case. Section 1172.75 also requires the trial court to resentence any defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes an invalidated section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement. (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).)

In 2023, the trial court struck the three section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements from Caldwell's sentence pursuant to section 1172.75. The court, however, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider any other modifications to Caldwell's sentence and imposed a term of 25 years to life.

On appeal, Caldwell contends that section 1172.75 requires trial courts to conduct a full resentencing, and that the court here therefore erred in failing to do so. Caldwell argues further that the court should have considered whether to strike one or more of his prior strike convictions pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (c),a provision recently enacted by Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 81).

Section 1385, subdivision (c) directs trial courts to "consider and afford great weight" to certain enumerated mitigating circumstances in determining whether to "dismiss an enhancement" in the furtherance of justice. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1)-(2).)

We reject Caldwell's argument concerning section 1385, subdivision (c) because we conclude that subdivision applies only to sentencing enhancements, not to alternative schemes such as the Three Strikes law. We agree, however, that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a full resentencing. We therefore remand the matter for a full resentencing consistent with section 1172.75's requirements.

FACTUAL SUMMARY AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We summarize here only the facts and procedural history relevant to our resolution of this appeal.

In January 2003, a jury convicted Caldwell of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of former section 12021, subdivision (a)(1). Caldwell moved to strike one or more of his prior strike convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court denied Caldwell's Romero motion and imposed a sentence of 28 years to life in prison, which included a base term of 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).

In 2016, we affirmed the trial court's denial of Caldwell's petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act (§ 1170.126). (See People v. Caldwell (Nov. 29, 2016, B272264) [nonpub. opn.].)

The sentence also included three additional one-year terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), which-at the time- required trial courts to impose a one-year enhancement for each true finding on an allegation that the defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. (See former § 667.5, subd. (b).)

Effective January 1, 2020, however, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5, subdivision (b) to eliminate sentence enhancements for prior prison terms unless the prior terms were for sexually violent offenses. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1; see People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 309 (Christianson), review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189.)Two years later, Senate Bill No. 483 added section 1172.75 to provide a resentencing procedure that extends the prohibition on prior prison term enhancements to all persons currently incarcerated in jail or prison. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3.)

The Supreme Court ordered the briefing in Christianson deferred pending the decision in People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169, where the issue on review is whether Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) entitles a defendant to a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 if the defendant's prior prison term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b) were imposed and stayed, rather than imposed and executed.

Section 1172.75 requires the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to identify individuals in the CDCR's custody serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement and to provide certain information about those individuals to the sentencing court. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) Upon confirming that a defendant is serving a sentence that includes a qualifying enhancement, the court must "recall the sentence and resentence the defendant." (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).)

In determining the new sentence, the court must "apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council" and "any other changes in law that reduce sentences." (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(2).) The court also "may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant's risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice." (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(3).)

In 2023, the trial court conducted a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing at which it struck each of Caldwell's one-year enhancements imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the hearing, Caldwell requested that the court also strike his prior strike convictions pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (c), which the Legislature recently had enacted via Senate Bill No. 81:

"[Defense counsel]: . . . Given that my client is about to be resentenced, I believe that he should be afforded the change of law with respect to . . . Senate Bill [No.] 81 .... So given he's being resentenced, he was also-at the time of the original sentencing, prior juvenile strikes were used against him to enhance his sentence, and so we're requesting that at the time of resentencing those aren't used pursuant to [Senate Bill No.] 81."

The court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs concerning the applicability of Senate Bill No. 81 and set the matter for a further hearing.

At that hearing, the court concluded that-notwithstanding the resentencing mandated by section 1172.75-it lacked jurisdiction to consider Caldwell's arguments concerning Senate Bill No. 81:

"The court: . . . [Senate Bill No. 81] only applies to sentences occurring after July 1st, 2022. This sentencing on the matter-I think it was 2003?

"[Defense counsel]: That was the original sentence date; then [Caldwell] was resentenced and his three years were lopped off his current sentence, and then when we were here, Your Honor told me to brief the issue on Senate Bill [No.] 81 because he's already been resentenced. Given he's been resentenced, he's entitled to the changes in the law under [section] 1385.

"[¶] . . . [¶]

"The court: I don't have jurisdiction. I disagree with the argument. It doesn't restart the sentencing finality. That happened a long time ago.

"[Defense counsel]: I don't understand, Your Honor. If he was resentenced based on the law change after that January 1st date, then the new law does apply to him.

"[¶] . . . [¶]

"The court: Okay. The motion is dismissed. The [Senate Bill No.] 81 provisions are not retroactive. The petitioner's case was final many years ago, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's motion. On the issue of the recent dismissal of, I think it was, if I'm not mistaken, a one-year prior, correct?

"[Defense counsel]: A [section] 667.5, yes.

"The court: That doesn't revive the finality of the sentencing that occurred back in 2003, and there's case law on it."

Caldwell timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Caldwell contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a full resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. He contends further that the court erred in refusing to consider whether to strike one or more of his Three Strikes prior convictions pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (c).

On Caldwell's first point, we agree, as does the Attorney General." 'By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly "invalid" [section 667.5, subdivision (b)] enhancements.' [Citations.]" (People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1276, review granted Mar. 12, 2024, S283547; accord, Christianson, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 311 ["[s]ection 1172.75, subdivision (c) requires trial courts to provide a full resentencing to any defendant currently serving time on a judgment that includes a [qualifying] sentencing enhancement"].)

The Supreme Court has deferred briefing in Saldana pending the decision in Rhodius (see fn. 5, ante).

Here, the record indicates the court was unaware of its authority to engage in a full resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. The court thus failed to exercise "informed discretion" in resentencing Caldwell, and we therefore remand the matter for a full resentencing in compliance with section 1172.75. (See People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988 ["' "Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the 'informed discretion' of the sentencing court. [Citations.] A court which is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that 'informed discretion' than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant's record."' "].)

In light of our conclusion, we need not address Caldwell's alternative argument that the trial court's failure to perform a full resentencing constitutes "structural error" mandating reversal of his sentence. We note further that we express no view concerning whether Caldwell should receive a lesser sentence on remand.

We are not persuaded, however, by Caldwell's argument concerning section 1385, subdivision (c). That section, "by its terms, applies only when a trial court is considering whether to dismiss 'an enhancement,' and a sentence under the Three Strikes law is not an enhancement." (People v. Dain (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 399, 410, review granted May 29, 2024, S283924; Dain, supra, at p. 404 ["Courts of Appeal have uniformly concluded that section 1385[, subdivision] (c) does not apply to the decision whether to dismiss a prior strike conviction because the Three Strikes law is an alternative sentencing scheme, not an enhancement"].) We therefore conclude that section 1385, subdivision (c) has no relevance to Caldwell's section 1172.75 resentencing on remand.

The issue on review in Dain is limited to the following: Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding the case with directions to reinstate the strike finding and to resentence defendant as a person who has suffered a prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes Law?

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded for a full resentencing in compliance with section 1172.75.

We concur: CHANEY, J., BENDIX, J.


Summaries of

People v. Caldwell

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Jun 27, 2024
No. B332616 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2024)
Case details for

People v. Caldwell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICKY GLEN CALDWELL, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Jun 27, 2024

Citations

No. B332616 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2024)