People v. Cervantes CA2/8, B332390

Rosemary Cervantes was convicted of two DUI-related offenses after causing a head-on collision that resulted in significant injuries to two victims.
Evidence showed Cervantes was intoxicated while driving; she admitted having consumed alcohol, and her blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit.
At trial, enhancements for causing great bodily injury to each victim and for injuring multiple victims were found true by the jury.
At sentencing, Cervantes argued that the trial court should dismiss all but one enhancement under Penal Code § 1385 due to the presence of multiple enhancements in a single case.
The trial court imposed the low term sentence plus the enhancements, striking (not dismissing) the sentence on one enhancement, leading to an aggregate sentence of five years and four months.
Cervantes appealed, claiming the trial court failed to afford proper weight to mitigating factors that could require dismissal of multiple enhancements under amended law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consideration of § 1385(c) mitigating factor	Trial court has discretion and is presumed to know/apply the law; no error on silent record	Cervantes argues court failed to give 'great weight' to mitigating factor of multiple enhancements and to make findings required by law	Court presumed to know law; no affirmative indication of misunderstanding—affirmed
Requirement to state reasons for not dismissing enhancements	Not required to state reasons if declining to exercise § 1385 discretion	Should have stated reasons, especially regarding public safety finding if not dismissing	Court not required to make express findings or state reasons on record
Application of new statutory amendments at sentencing	Trial court presumed conversant with law more than a year post-amendment	Characterizes law as 'newly amended,' suggesting trial judge may have been unaware	Court presumed aware of legal standards in effect
Impact of subsequent Supreme Court decision (People v. Walker)	Later Supreme Court case does not change analysis nor require remand	Resentencing necessary since Walker clarifies presumptions for enhancement dismissal	Walker does not warrant remand nor alter result here

People v. Gutierrez, 174 Cal.App.4th 515 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (presumption that trial court understands and applies correct legal standards in absence of affirmative evidence to contrary)
People v. Whitmill, 86 Cal.App.5th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (trial court abuses discretion if decision grounded in incorrect legal standard or unsupported findings)
People v. Coleman, 98 Cal.App.5th 709 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (burden on appellant to affirmatively demonstrate trial court error in sentencing discretion)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (court’s discretionary sentencing determination not overturned absent clear abuse of discretion)
People v. Stowell, 31 Cal.4th 1107 (Cal. 2003) (presumption that courts follow the law, especially when cited by counsel and reviewed by court)