90 Cal.App.5th 984
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2016 Fredrickson (age 23 at the time) was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance and possession of marijuana for sale; she pleaded no contest to manufacturing and was placed on formal probation with 185 days county jail.
- In Feb–Mar 2022 she admitted probation violations (including failure to surrender); the trial court revoked probation and imposed a five‑year middle term (2 years custody, 3 years mandatory supervision).
- The sentencing occurred after the Jan 1, 2022 amendment to Penal Code § 1170(b)(6)(B), which creates a presumption in favor of the lower term when the defendant’s youth (under 26) was a contributing factor in the crime unless aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigation.
- The trial court did not reference § 1170(b)(6)(B) or make any express findings about whether Fredrickson’s youth contributed to the offense; it cited lack of responsibility and need for enforced sobriety in imposing the midterm.
- Fredrickson appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by not applying the lower‑term youth presumption and failing to make the required “interests of justice” finding, and (2) defense counsel was ineffective for not raising the presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Fredrickson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170(b)(6)(B) required the trial court to apply a presumption for the lower term at sentencing after probation revocation when defendant was 23 at offense date | Presumption only applies if youth was a contributing factor; here no initial showing that youth contributed, so statute was not triggered | Court should have treated the lower term as presumptive and made the interests‑of‑justice finding before imposing midterm | Presumption was not triggered: no record evidence or arguments showing youth was a contributing factor, so no express finding was required; no abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue § 1170(b)(6)(B) presumption | Counsel not deficient because the record contained no basis to show youth contributed; no prejudice shown on direct appeal | Counsel ineffective for failing to seek the lower term presumption | Not ineffective on direct appeal: no deficient performance or prejudice shown; habeas available if there is extra‑record evidence that youth contributed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Flores, 73 Cal.App.5th 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (discusses § 1170(b)(6)(B) youth presumption and remand where statute enacted while appeal pending)
- People v. Ochoa, 53 Cal.App.5th 841 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (remand where record ambiguous about whether court considered statutorily required youth‑related mitigating factors)
- People v. Panozo, 59 Cal.App.5th 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (remand where court likely unaware of statutory obligation to consider service‑related PTSD as mitigation)
- People v. Bruhn, 210 Cal.App.3d 1195 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (statute is triggered only after an initial/prima facie showing; trial court must affirmatively indicate consideration when triggered)
- People v. Sanford, 204 Cal.App.3d 1181 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (on a silent record, court cannot be presumed to have discharged mandatory statutory duties once conditions triggering those duties are found)
- People v. Young, 228 Cal.App.3d 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (distinguishes Bruhn where record did not put trial court on notice to consider the alternative statutory sentencing scheme)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made with "informed discretion")