96 Cal.App.5th 562
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In Oct. 2016 Coddington assaulted a fellow inmate; charged with assault (§ 245(a)(4)), criminal threats (§ 422), a great-bodily-injury enhancement (§ 12022.7), a prior serious felony (§ 667(a)), a strike (§ 1170.12), and three prior prison terms (former § 667.5(b)).
- In May 2017 he pleaded guilty to the assault and admitted the great-bodily-injury allegation, the serious-felony allegation, the strike, and one one‑year prison prior; the agreed sentence was 13 years.
- Senate Bill 136 (2019) and Senate Bill 483 (2021) eliminated most prison‑prior enhancements and made that change retroactive, rendering many pre‑2020 prison priors legally invalid.
- In Aug. 2022 Coddington moved to strike his one‑year prison‑prior enhancement; the trial court granted the motion, reducing his term from 13 to 12 years. He appealed pro se, arguing the court failed to conduct a full resentencing.
- The Court of Appeal agreed Coddington is entitled on remand to seek additional sentence reductions (e.g., under SB 1393 and SB 81) but held that if the prosecutor (or court) is inclined to approve reductions beyond the prison‑prior strike, the prosecutor may withdraw assent to the plea per People v. Stamps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing to remove a prison prior requires full resentencing authority to consider other sentence‑reducing law | People: resentencing under §1172.75 permits application of other laws that reduce sentences but does not automatically grant defendants more than the specific relief sought | Coddington: court must conduct a full resentencing and may apply other post‑conviction sentence‑reducing statutes (e.g., SB 1393, SB 81) | Held: Defendant is entitled to seek full resentencing and to request reductions under other post‑conviction laws on remand (agreeing with Buycks/Monroe principles) |
| Whether defendant forfeited the right to seek additional relief by limiting trial counsel’s motion to only the prison prior | People: defendant’s counsel sought only prison‑prior relief; forfeiture applies | Coddington: no forfeiture; alternatively ineffective assistance | Held: Court declined to find forfeiture and exercised appellate authority to consider the unpreserved issue (did not reach ineffective‑assistance claim) |
| Whether seeking further reductions beyond striking a prison prior can be pursued without risk to the plea bargain (i.e., does SB 483 bar prosecutor/court from rescinding plea) | People: SB 483’s uncodified intent protects only relief tied to prison‑prior elimination and does not override Stamps as to other discretionary reductions | Coddington: SB 483’s intent language bars rescission of plea for any sentence change occurring on resentencing | Held: SB 483 protects only prison‑prior reductions from being a basis to rescind a plea; for other discretionary reductions, Stamps governs and the prosecutor may withdraw assent if the court indicates it will reduce the plea term |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Supreme Court of Cal.) (when a plea produced a stipulated sentence, defendant may seek benefit of a change in law on remand but if the court is inclined to reduce the stipulated term, the prosecutor may withdraw assent and restore status quo ante)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Supreme Court of Cal.) (on recall/resentencing the court may modify every aspect of the sentence)
- People v. Monroe, 85 Cal.App.5th 393 (Cal. Ct. App.) (during resentencing for prison‑prior removal, defendant entitled to seek relief under other sentence‑reducing statutes)
- People v. Burgess, 86 Cal.App.5th 375 (Cal. Ct. App.) (SB 136 eliminated most prison priors)
- People v. Kimble, 93 Cal.App.5th 582 (Cal. Ct. App.) (SB 483 makes prison‑prior elimination retroactive for those currently incarcerated)
- People v. Ellis, 43 Cal.App.5th 925 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses limits on whittling down stipulated plea terms and the consequences on plea bargains)
- People v. Garcia, 28 Cal.App.5th 961 (Cal. Ct. App.) (SB 1393 gives courts discretion to strike serious‑felony enhancements)
- People v. Sek, 74 Cal.App.5th 657 (Cal. Ct. App.) (SB 81 provides statutory guidance for courts considering striking enhancements)
Disposition: Remanded for full resentencing so Coddington may seek reductions under SB 1393, SB 81, and any other applicable laws, with the caveat that reductions beyond the prison‑prior strike may permit the prosecutor to withdraw from the plea agreement under Stamps.