People v. Cutting, 42 Cal.App.5th 344

Carl Cutting pleaded no contest/guilty to four counts (drug possession for sale, felon with a firearm, ammunition possession, child abuse) and admitted multiple priors.
Original aggregate sentence was 19 years 8 months, including a nine-year enhancement under Health & Safety Code §11370.2(a) (three separate 3-year enhancements).
On appeal the sentence was reversed due to a change in law making the §11370.2 enhancements improper; the matter was remanded with directions to strike those enhancements and resentence in light of the changed law.
At resentencing Cutting was in state prison, represented by counsel, but did not personally appear; counsel told the court Cutting’s presence was not required because the new sentence would be lower.
The court struck the nine-year enhancement but imposed a higher aggregate sentence (12 years 8 months) than defense requested; Cutting appealed claiming his absence at resentencing violated his constitutional and statutory rights.
The Court of Appeal held Cutting had a federal constitutional right to be present at resentencing, found the absence was not shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, reversed the resentencing, and remanded for a new resentencing at which Cutting must be present unless he validly waives that right under Penal Code §1193.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cutting had a right to be personally present at the resentencing hearing	Presence not required because Cutting was incarcerated and post-remand sentence would be lower, so counsel could proceed in his absence	Resentencing is a "critical stage"; Cutting has a federal constitutional right to be personally present and did not waive it	Cutting had a federal constitutional right to be present at resentencing; proceeding without a valid waiver was error
Whether Cutting’s absence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Any error was harmless (Watson review); Cutting cannot show prejudice from absence	Federal constitutional error requires Chapman harmlessness; People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence did not affect the outcome	Chapman applies; People failed to prove the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal and remand for new resentencing required

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Rodriguez, 17 Cal.4th 253 (1998) (resentencing is a critical stage requiring defendant's presence)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (when part of a sentence is stricken on review, full resentencing may be appropriate)
People v. Blacksher, 52 Cal.4th 769 (2011) (criminal defendant's right to be personally present governed by federal and state constitutional provisions)
People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (2009) (sentencing is a critical stage of prosecution)
People v. Simms, 23 Cal.App.5th 987 (2018) (defendant's right to be personally present extends to resentencing)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (state-law harmless-error standard sometimes applied when federal right not implicated)