Opinion
E082386
12-23-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGER DALE COOK, Defendant and Appellant.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Mulford and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County (Super.Ct.No. SWF1500964) . John D. Molloy, Judge.
Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Mulford and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MENETREZ J.
Following a jury trial in 2016, the trial court sentenced Roger Dale Cook to the midterm of four years for residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code), doubled because of a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), plus one year four months for vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), one year each for two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and five years for a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), for a total of 16 years 4 months in state prison. (People v. Cook (Aug. 10, 2017, E066709) [nonpub. opn.].) Cook appealed from the judgment. We held that section 654 precluded multiple punishment for the burglary and the vehicle theft convictions, and we directed the trial court to stay the sentence on the latter, reducing his sentence to 15 years. (Ibid.)
In 2022, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recommended that Cook be resentenced under former section 1170.03, which the Legislature later renumbered as section 1172.1. The trial court held a resentencing hearing in October 2023 and declined to resentence Cook under section 1172.1. The court explained that Cook was going to be resentenced pursuant to section 1172.75 and that the court would "apply all the changes in the law." The court struck the two one-year prison priors and then proceeded to resentencing. The court considered Cook's criminal history, the violent nature of the current offenses, and Cook's rules violations while in custody. The court denied Cook's motion to strike the five-year sentence for the prior serious felony conviction, and the court resentenced Cook to 13 years.
Cook appeals, arguing that the court erred by declining to resentence him pursuant to section 1172.1. The People respond that any error was harmless because "when the trial court resentenced [Cook] under section 1172.75 it applied the same intervening changes in sentencing law that it would have applied in [a] section 1172.1 resentencing hearing, including section 1385, subdivision (c)." Cook's opening brief does not mention section 1172.75 and does not address prejudice, and he did not file a reply brief.
The People are correct that any error was harmless. When the trial court resentenced Cook under section 1172.75, it was required to and did apply all of the changes in sentencing law that it would have applied under section 1172.1, including section 1385, subdivision (c). There consequently is no reasonable probability that Cook would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of any purported error in failing to resentence him pursuant to section 1172.1. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) Cook has received, under section 1172.75, the full resentencing that he would have received under section 1172.1.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J. FIELDS J.