People v. Cota
97 Cal.App.5th 318
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2016 Cota was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, battery causing serious bodily injury, and child abuse causing (or likely to cause) great bodily harm; multiple enhancements were imposed, including a prior serious felony (five‑year) enhancement and several one‑year prior prison‑term enhancements.
- On direct appeal some one‑year prior prison‑term enhancements were stricken; the core strike and five‑year prior‑serious‑felony enhancement remained, and the original sentence was effectively reduced to 25 years then later adjusted.
- After Senate Bill No. 483 (codified at former § 1171.1, now § 1172.75) invalidated many prior prison‑term enhancements, Cota filed a resentencing petition and DOC identified him as eligible; the trial court recalled sentence, dismissed the invalid prior prison‑term enhancements, but denied a motion to strike the five‑year prior serious‑felony enhancement and the great bodily‑injury enhancement and resentenced Cota to 20 years.
- Cota appealed, arguing (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentencing under § 1172.75, (2) § 1385(c)(2)(B) (Sen. Bill No. 81) mandates dismissal of enhancements (so the five‑year and the GB injury enhancements must be stricken), (3) the court failed to properly consider postconviction rehabilitation evidence (due process/abuse of discretion), and (4) remand is required so the court can exercise § 654 discretion after Assembly Bill No. 518; he also raised ineffective assistance to preserve one claim.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: the court had jurisdiction once DOC notified under § 1172.75; § 1385(c)(2)(B) does not automatically mandate dismissal of enhancements (court retains discretion and may deny dismissal if it would endanger public safety); the trial court did not ignore Cota’s rehabilitative evidence; and remand under § 654 was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cota) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to resentencing under § 1172.75 | Court had jurisdiction only if triggered by DOC list; courts should follow statutory process | Trial court had jurisdiction because DOC identified Cota as eligible and triggered § 1172.75 review | Trial court had jurisdiction once DOC provided the identification; defendant’s unauthorized motion did not deprive court of statutory jurisdiction |
| Whether § 1385(c)(2)(B) mandates dismissal of enhancements (prior serious felony) | § 1385 interpreted as discretionary; dismissal conditioned on "in furtherance of justice" and public‑safety exception | "Shall be dismissed" is mandatory; court must dismiss all but one enhancement (or other enhancements per text) | § 1385(c)(2)(B) does not mandate automatic dismissal; the statute preserves judicial discretion and permits denial if dismissal would endanger public safety |
| Whether the great bodily‑injury enhancement had to be dismissed under § 1385(c)(2)(B) | Court need not strike GB enhancement where discretion retained and safety concerns exist | GB enhancement must be dismissed because only one enhancement may remain under § 1385(c)(2)(B) | Argument rejected: (1) § 1385(c)(2)(B) is not mandatory, (2) defendant forfeited failing to seek it below, (3) the strike is part of alternative sentencing scheme, and presumption court followed law supports denial |
| Whether trial court abused discretion or violated due process by not considering rehabilitative evidence | Court considered but permissibly found rehab evidence outweighed by serious, recent criminal history | Court failed to give adequate weight and effectively ignored postconviction rehabilitation and age/time served evidence | No abuse of discretion or due process violation; record shows mitigation was considered but outweighed by danger to public safety |
| Whether remand required so court re‑exercises § 654 discretion after Assembly Bill No. 518 | If court misapplied § 654, remand needed to decide which counts to stay under new discretion | Court must be remanded to decide whether to stay longer count and impose lower sentence under amended § 654 | Forfeited by failure to object below; in any event presumption court knew the law and record demonstrates it would have imposed same sentence, so remand not required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.C., 8 Cal.5th 1119 (clarifying that the unauthorized‑sentence doctrine requires court jurisdiction over the judgment)
- People v. King, 77 Cal.App.5th 629 (discussing limits on freestanding motions to modify final sentences)
- People v. Burgess, 86 Cal.App.5th 375 (holding § 1172.75 relief not available on defendant’s freestanding motion absent DOC trigger)
- People v. Escobedo, 95 Cal.App.5th 440 (similar conclusion on trial court jurisdiction under § 1172.75 in absence of DOC initiation)
- People v. Coddington, 96 Cal.App.5th 562 (remand for full resentencing under § 1172.75 where DOC involvement and resentencing occurred)
- People v. Anderson, 88 Cal.App.5th 233 (interpreting § 1385(c) as weighting mitigating factors heavily but preserving judicial discretion)
- People v. Walker, 86 Cal.App.5th 386 (discussing effect of § 1385(c) on presumption/tipping in favor of dismissal; issue granted review)
- People v. Ramirez, 10 Cal.5th 983 (presumption that trial court knows and applies current law)