People v. Burgess
86 Cal.App.5th 375
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- In 2010 Burgess pled and was sentenced to 30 years: 9 years (robbery), consecutive 20 years (firearm enhancement), and a consecutive 1-year prior-prison-term enhancement under former Penal Code § 667.5(b).
- SB 136 (2019) narrowed § 667.5(b) to apply only to prior sexually violent offenses; courts held non‑SVP prior‑term enhancements legally invalid (People v. Jennings).
- SB 483 (effective Jan. 1, 2022; later renumbered § 1172.75) created a CDCR‑initiated, staggered process for identifying affected inmates and directing courts to recall and resentence by statutory deadlines (priority group by Oct. 1, 2022; all others by Dec. 31, 2023).
- Burgess filed two pro se motions: (1) to vacate the 1‑year prior‑term enhancement under § 1172.75 (A164763); (2) to vacate the firearm enhancement under amended § 1385 (SB 81 / A164969).
- The trial court denied both motions; Burgess appealed. The Court of Appeal consolidated the appeals, dismissed them, and explained jurisdictional and statutory reasons for the denials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Burgess’s § 1172.75 motion to vacate the prior‑term enhancement | People: Trial court properly denied because § 1172.75 contemplates a CDCR‑initiated process with staggered deadlines; courts lack authority to reshuffle priorities | Burgess: He provided required info and the court must verify and recall sentence now; nothing prohibits a defendant‑initiated petition | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; court explains § 1172.75 requires CDCR reporting and staggered relief, so Burgess cannot jump the statutory queue; even on merits relief premature |
| Whether Burgess may obtain relief under amended § 1385 (SB 81) to dismiss the firearm enhancement | People: SB 81 § 1385(c) applies only to sentencings after Jan. 1, 2022; defendant cannot move under § 1385(a); appeal may be dismissed as abandoned | Burgess: He sought resentencing/dismissal of enhancement under SB 81 amendments to § 1385 | Appeal dismissed (Wende procedure); on merits court would deny — § 1385(c) not retroactive to Burgess’s pre‑2022 sentencing and defendant may not move to dismiss under § 1385(a) for a final sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jennings, 42 Cal.App.5th 664 (explaining SB 136 made non‑SVP prior‑term enhancements legally invalid)
- People v. Cole, 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 (Wende procedures apply to first appeal of right; not to postconviction relief appeals)
- People v. Figueras, 61 Cal.App.5th 108 (Wende inapplicable to appeals from denial of postconviction relief)
- People v. Flores, 54 Cal.App.5th 266 (Wende procedures inapplicable to resentencing petitions under § 1172.6; discretionary review discussion)
- People v. Bravo, 219 Cal.App.3d 729 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- People v. Hernandez, 22 Cal.4th 512 (defendant may not move under § 1385(a) to dismiss part of a final sentence)
- Gattuso v. Harte‑Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal.4th 554 (principles of statutory interpretation and giving statutes a commonsense construction)
- People v. Freeman, 61 Cal.App.5th 126 (discussion of Wende’s scope in appeals not constituting direct appeals of right)