People v. Bryant CA2/1
B306977
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 1, 2021Background:
- In 2004 Bryant was convicted of multiple robberies, attempted robberies, false imprisonment, and felon-in-possession; jury found he was armed and he had three prior serious-felony convictions; two strikes were struck under Romero.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 60 years 8 months; enhancements (serious-felony and firearm use) accounted for more than 38 years of that term.
- Legislature enacted SB 620 (2017) and SB 1393 (2018), making certain firearm and five-year serious-felony enhancements discretionary (courts may strike them).
- CDCR wrote the trial court in January 2020 recommending recall and resentencing under Penal Code §1170(d); Bryant moved in May 2020 to strike the serious-felony and firearm enhancements.
- The trial court denied Bryant’s motion as a lawful and appropriate response to his crimes; the Court of Appeal held the trial court had jurisdiction under §1170(d) but did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike the enhancements.
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Bryant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider striking enhancements after Bryant’s judgment was final | Courts lack jurisdiction to apply SB 620/SB 1393 to convictions already final; relief unavailable absent clear retroactivity | CDCR’s §1170(d) recommendation authorized the trial court to recall and resentence, so the court had jurisdiction to consider striking enhancements | The CDCR letter triggered §1170(d) authority; the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence and consider striking the enhancements |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike the serious-felony and firearm enhancements | The People argued the court properly exercised discretion to deny relief given the gravity and facts of the offenses | Bryant argued the court failed to weigh changed public policy against long sentences and his age; relief was warranted under the new discretionary regime | No abuse of discretion: the court permissibly considered the relevant factors and reasonably concluded a lengthy sentence remained appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (explaining finality rule for ameliorative statutes and when they apply)
- People v. Johnson, 32 Cal.4th 260 (treating §1170(d) resentencing authority as broad as the original sentencing authority)
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (director’s recommendation to recall a sentence does not compel the court to act)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (under §1170(d) the resentencing court may modify every aspect of the sentence)
- People v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.4th 1412 (discussing timing and scope of §1170(d) recall authority)
- People v. Pearson, 38 Cal.App.5th 112 (standard of review for striking enhancements is abuse of discretion)