In re Guiomar
209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In March 2014 John Manuel Guiomar pleaded guilty in four cases: robbery (§ 211), burglary (§ 459), failure to appear on a felony (§ 1320.5), and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11350). The agreed aggregate term was 6 years.
- Sentence components: robbery 4 years (doubled for a prior strike), burglary 16 months (consecutive, doubled), failure to appear 8 months (consecutive), possession concurrent 2 years.
- After Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) Guiomar petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.18 to recall sentence; the trial court (May 6, 2015) reduced burglary and drug possession to misdemeanors and resentenced, resulting in a 6-year aggregate by increasing the robbery and failure-to-appear terms (petitioner was not present).
- Petitioner filed habeas petitions claiming (1) trial court lacked jurisdiction to increase terms on counts unaffected by the § 1170.18 petition, (2) failure-to-appear must be vacated because its predicate felony was redesignated a misdemeanor, (3) he was denied the right to be present at resentencing, and (4) ineffective assistance and an unauthorized second‑strike term were imposed on the failure-to-appear count.
- The appellate court issued an order to show cause, analyzed jurisdiction, statutory effect of redesignation, presence/right-to-be-present, ineffective assistance, and an asserted sentencing error, and granted relief only to correct an unauthorized doubled (second‑strike) term on the failure-to-appear count.
Issues
| Issue | Guiomar's Argument | People/AG's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to increase terms on counts not directly redesignated under Prop 47 and thereby preserve the original aggregate term | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to increase terms on unaffected counts; aggregate should have been reduced when some felonies became misdemeanors | Aggregate sentences are interlocking; court may resentence all components to arrive at a lawful aggregate not exceeding the original | Court held trial court had jurisdiction to recalculate and increase affirmed-count terms so long as new aggregate did not exceed original aggregate sentence |
| Whether conviction for failure to appear on a felony (§ 1320.5) must be vacated when the underlying felony was later redesignated a misdemeanor under § 1170.18(k) | Failure to appear must be vacated because predicate felony is now a misdemeanor “for all purposes” | At the time of failure to appear defendant was charged with a felony; § 1320.5 targets the act of jumping bail and can stand | Court held redesignation did not automatically void the failure-to-appear conviction; vacatur not required |
| Whether defendant had a right to be personally present at the Prop 47 resentencing and whether absence requires a new resentencing | Guiomar lacked notice and was absent; his counsel did not timely notify him; he was prejudiced and merits a new hearing | Defendant has the right to be present but absence can be harmless if no prejudice | Court held defendant had a right to be present but his absence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no new hearing required |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to increased terms and whether a second‑strike term was properly imposed on failure to appear | Counsel ineffective for failing to object; trial court imposed a doubled (second‑strike) term improperly | Court argues no prejudice from counsel’s failure re: recalculation jurisdiction; but concedes an error occurred in doubling failure-to-appear because strike was dismissed as to that count | Court denied ineffective-assistance relief (no prejudice on recalculation claim) but granted relief to correct an unauthorized doubled term for the failure-to-appear conviction (order to amend abstract to reflect a 2-year term) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sellner, 240 Cal.App.4th 699 (discusses resentencing other counts after Prop 47 redesignation)
- People v. Roach, 247 Cal.App.4th 178 (permits recalculation of principal term and aggregate after Prop 47 reductions)
- People v. Burbine, 106 Cal.App.4th 1250 (trial court may increase principal term on resentencing so long as aggregate does not exceed original)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (effect of reducing a felony to a misdemeanor on later enhancements)
- People v. Walker, 29 Cal.4th 577 (gravamen of § 1320.5 is the act of failing to appear)
- People v. Davis, 36 Cal.4th 510 (errors denying defendant’s presence are evaluated under Chapman harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard)