Opinion
S275788
10-12-2022
PEOPLE v. SALAZAR
The petition for review is granted.
The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Did the Court of Appeal err by finding the record clearly indicates the trial court would not have imposed a low term sentence if it had been fully aware of its discretion under newly-added subdivision (b)(6) of Penal Code section 1170 ? (See People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 324 P.3d 245.)
Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 80 Cal.App.5th 453, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 94 may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)
Corrigan, J., was absent and did not participate.
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins and Guerrero, JJ.