People v. Billingsley
22 Cal. App. 5th 1076
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Joseph Billingsley was convicted of multiple firearm-related offenses including attempted murder and assault with a firearm; jury found most enhancements true but a willful, deliberate, premeditated attempted murder allegation ended in a mistrial.
- Trial court sentenced Billingsley to an aggregate term of 38 years 4 months, including a 20-year enhancement under Penal Code §12022.53(c) and a §12022.5(a) enhancement for an assault count; one §12022.5(a) enhancement was stayed.
- At sentencing the trial court believed it had no discretion to strike or stay the §12022.53 and §12022.5 enhancements under the law as it then existed, and stated it would not have stayed/struck the §12022.53(c) enhancement.
- Legislature later amended §12022.5(c) and §12022.53(h) (effective Jan 1, 2018, S.B. 620) to permit trial courts retroactive discretion to strike firearm enhancements in the interest of justice.
- Billingsley requested remand for resentencing so the trial court could exercise that new discretion; the People conceded the amendments apply retroactively but argued remand was unnecessary because the sentencing court indicated it would not have struck enhancements.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for a limited resentencing hearing to allow the trial court to decide whether to strike (in whole or in part) the firearm enhancements under the amended statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by failing to instruct on self-defense/imperfect self-defense | Billingsley: jury should have received instructions (issue raised but unpublished) | People: instructions were not required (not argued in published portion) | Conviction affirmed (unpublished portion) |
| Whether remand for resentencing is required under amended §12022.5 and §12022.53 | Billingsley: remand required so court can exercise new discretion to strike enhancements | People: remand unnecessary because trial court said it would not have struck enhancements | Remand required for limited resentencing to permit exercise of discretion under amended statutes |
| Whether record ‘‘clearly indicates’’ court would not have struck enhancements (so remand unnecessary) | Billingsley: record does not clearly show court would have refused to exercise discretion; court was unaware of full scope of new discretion | People: sentencing remarks show court would not strike, so remand pointless | Court held record did not clearly indicate the court would have refused to exercise the new statutory discretion; remand appropriate |
| Whether trial court must impose longest §12022.53 enhancement or may now choose among them | People: at original sentencing, statute required imposing longest term and staying others | Billingsley: under amended law court may strike enhancements and choose what to impose | Court: amendments allow court to strike enhancements in interest of justice; remand so court can consider striking any of the §12022.53 or §12022.5 enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fuentes, 1 Cal.5th 218 (discusses limitations on striking firearm enhancements prior to amendment)
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (principle that court previously had to impose longest §12022.53 term)
- People v. Oates, 32 Cal.4th 1048 (prior rule on imposing/staying multiple firearm enhancements)
- People v. Gutierrez, 48 Cal.App.4th 1894 (remand unnecessary only if record clearly shows court would not have exercised discretion)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (a sentencing court must be aware of the full scope of its discretion for an "informed" decision)
- People v. Watts, 22 Cal.App.5th 102 (retroactivity of S.B. 620 discretion to strike firearm enhancements)
- People v. Robbins, 19 Cal.App.5th 660 (remand appropriate to allow court to decide whether to strike firearm enhancements)