People v. Doulphus CA3
C089263
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Defendant Alan Doulphus pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery (§ 211) (each with a § 12022.53 enhancement for discharging a firearm) and one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192(a)).
- Initial aggregate sentence was 42 years 4 months; no stipulated term in plea; sentence was later recalled on appeal to permit reconsideration under SB 620.
- Senate Bill No. 620 amended § 12022.53(h) to permit the court, in the interest of justice under § 1385, to "strike or dismiss" firearm enhancements at sentencing or resentencing.
- On remand the trial court considered the defendant’s rehabilitative efforts, struck the § 12022.53 enhancement on two of three robbery counts, and resentenced defendant to 29 years total.
- Defendant argued (relying on People v. Morrison) the trial court should have been allowed to impose a lesser, uncharged firearm enhancement instead of only striking or retaining the charged enhancement.
- The Court of Appeal rejected Morrison’s approach, ruled the court’s § 1385/§ 12022.53(h) authority is limited to striking or imposing the charged enhancement (not substituting a lesser uncharged enhancement), and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court, in exercising discretion under § 1385 and § 12022.53(h), may modify a charged § 12022.53 enhancement to a lesser, uncharged firearm enhancement | The People: courts lack authority to substitute or reduce a charged enhancement; power is binary—strike or impose | Doulphus: under Morrison the court can impose a lesser, uncharged § 12022.53 enhancement when resentencing | Court: affirmed—§ 1385 and § 12022.53(h) permit striking or imposing the charged enhancement but do not authorize substituting a lesser uncharged enhancement; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morrison, 34 Cal.App.5th 217 (argued courts may remand to consider substituting a lesser firearm enhancement)
- People v. Marsh, 36 Cal.3d 134 (trial courts have broad sentencing options under § 1385)
- People v. Tirado, 38 Cal.App.5th 637 (court held § 12022.53(h)/§ 1385 do not authorize substituting a lesser uncharged enhancement)
- People v. Harvey, 233 Cal.App.3d 1206 (statutory language permitting striking an enhancement does not authorize imposition of a lesser enhancement)
- People v. Yanez, 44 Cal.App.5th 452 (concurring with Tirado—no substitution power under § 1385/§ 12022.53(h))