People v. Arellano, 16 Cal.5th 457

Background

Luis Ramon Manzano Arellano was convicted of second-degree murder in connection with a 1992 killing that occurred during a residential burglary and attempted robbery.
Arellano agreed to plead guilty to murder in exchange for the dismissal of accompanying charges (burglary and attempted robbery) and a firearm use enhancement.
Following statutory changes enacted by Senate Bill No. 1437, which reformed California’s felony-murder and natural and probable consequences doctrines, Arellano filed a petition to be resentenced under Penal Code section 1172.6.
The trial court vacated the murder conviction and, despite no prior guilty plea or jury finding, resentenced Arellano for attempted robbery and imposed a previously dismissed firearm enhancement.
The Court of Appeal reversed the inclusion of the firearm enhancement, holding the trial court erred under section 1172.6.
The Supreme Court of California granted review to address whether courts may impose uncharged and unproven sentencing enhancements during resentencing after relief under section 1172.6.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court may impose uncharged and unproven sentence enhancements during resentencing under PC 1172.6(e)	The Attorney General argued courts have flexibility to impose enhancements deemed appropriate even if not previously charged or proven.	Arellano contended only enhancements previously admitted or found true may be imposed; adding others violates due process.	The court held courts may not impose enhancements or allegations unless previously pled and either proven or admitted in open court.
Whether the firearm enhancement could be included in Arellano’s resentencing	The prosecution argued the trial record supplied evidence for the enhancement and that parties previously agreed to it.	Defense objected, citing lack of jury finding or defendant's admission and lack of clear evidence.	The court affirmed that the firearm enhancement must be stricken as it was not pled and proven or admitted.
Legislative intent of section 1172.6 resentencing flexibility	Plaintiff suggested legislative purpose supports sentencing based on actual culpability, allowing for use of new enhancements.	Defendant emphasized the law was meant to reduce exposure to lengthy sentences unconnected to proven conduct.	The court agreed with defendant, finding legislative history supported only sentencing based on charges found true or admitted.
Procedural structure for imposing enhancements in resentencing	Plaintiff referenced past interpretations (e.g., Howard) allowing analogous enhancements.	Defendant and amicus distinguished prior cases, pointing out enhancements there had been proven at trial.	The court distinguished Howard and other cases, holding enhancements must be pled and proven.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Cavitt, 33 Cal.4th 187 (explained the underlying felony requisite for felony-murder rule)
People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (explained the target offense requisite for the natural and probable consequences doctrine)
People v. Superior Court (Mendella), 33 Cal.3d 754 (distinguished between enhancements and underlying offenses)
People v. Dennis, 17 Cal.4th 468 (explained the nonequivalence of sentence enhancements to substantive offenses)
People v. Zapien, 4 Cal.4th 929 (held that courts should not add what the legislature omitted from its enactments)