People v. Bolden CA4/1, D078279

Bolden was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted robbery, robbery, and multiple firearm enhancements under Penal Code § 12022.53; original sentence included a determinate term and a 50-years-to-life indeterminate term.
On appeal, the conviction was affirmed but the matter was remanded for resentencing to allow the trial court to consider whether to strike or dismiss one or more § 12022.53 enhancements under subdivision (h).
At the resentencing hearing, Bolden’s appointed counsel stated Bolden was in state prison and orally purported to waive his client’s appearance; no written waiver appears in the record.
The trial court denied Bolden’s motion to dismiss/strike enhancements and proceeded in his absence.
The People conceded the absence was prejudicial error; the Court of Appeal held the oral statement by counsel did not satisfy the statutory requirement for a written waiver and reversed and remanded for a new resentencing hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether holding resentencing in defendant’s absence without a written waiver violated his statutory and constitutional right to be present	People conceded the absence was prejudicial error and remand is appropriate	Bolden argued he did not waive the right to be present; oral counsel statement insufficient under § 977(c)	Reversed and remanded for resentencing; written waiver required for absence at felony sentencing/resentencing; oral counsel statement inadequate
Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapman standard)	People conceded prejudice	Bolden argued presence could have produced mitigation, remorse, or plea for leniency	Court applied Chapman; could not conclude harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversal was required
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by proceeding in Bolden’s absence	People argued no need to reach IAC given remand	Bolden claimed counsel was ineffective for proceeding without securing a written waiver	Court declined to decide IAC because reversal and remand on the presence/waiver error afforded full relief

People v. Concepcion, 45 Cal.4th 77 (Cal. 2008) (recognizes defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to be personally present at critical stages, including sentencing; waiver principles)
People v. Cutting, 42 Cal.App.5th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (resentencing is a critical stage; presence required and error may be prejudicial)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (establishes harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for constitutional errors)