People v. Craft CA3, C091752

In July 2003 John Henry Craft assaulted a 74‑year‑old in a bathroom, grabbed his mouth, struck him, took his gold watch and over $250. He was charged with second‑degree robbery and elder abuse, with allegations of great bodily injury and multiple prior serious/violent felony convictions.
After a December 2003 jury trial Craft was convicted on both counts; the elder‑abuse sentence was stayed under §654 and he received an aggregate term of 25 years to life plus 10 years for two prior serious‑felony enhancements.
In January 2020 the Department of Corrections recommended recall and resentencing under Penal Code §1170(d)(1); defense counsel submitted a bench memorandum in support and the court heard the matter March 16, 2020 but declined to recall the sentence.
Craft appealed; appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders opening brief and Craft filed a supplemental brief arguing the trial court erred by denying the §1170(d) request without an evidentiary hearing and without making findings on public‑safety risk.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the record under Wende procedures, addressed whether a hearing or specific public‑safety findings were required, and affirmed the trial court’s order denying recall and resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on a §1170(d)(1) recommendation	Statute is permissive and silent as to a mandatory hearing; court may rule without one	Court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the Department’s recommendation	No hearing is required; court may rule without conducting an evidentiary hearing
Whether trial court must make specific findings about whether the defendant poses a threat to public safety before denying recall	§1170(d)(1) contains no mandatory public‑safety‑finding requirement; different statutes set forth such mandatory findings	Court was required to make findings addressing whether defendant posed a danger to public safety	No particular public‑safety findings are required under §1170(d)(1); court acted within discretion
Applicability of Wende/Anders procedures to this appeal	Wende procedures are an appropriate safeguard when appointed counsel files a Wende brief	(Craft urged review and raised arguments in supplemental brief)	Court applied Wende review in absence of contrary Supreme Court authority and because counsel complied with Wende procedures

People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (establishes appellate‑counsel duties and procedures for indigent appeals)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (permits counsel to seek to withdraw when appeal is frivolous and requires brief to court and opportunity for defendant to file a supplemental brief)
People v. McCallum, 55 Cal.App.5th 202 (holds trial court need not hold a hearing before ruling on Secretary’s recommendation under §1170(d)(1))
People v. Delson, 161 Cal.App.3d 56 (upholds denial of a hearing on a Department recommendation as within trial court’s discretion)