People v. Garcia
82 Cal.App.5th 956
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Mario Garcia shot a semi-automatic handgun at a responding police officer after a home altercation; charged with multiple felonies and convicted of assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm and other counts.
- Initially sentenced in 2018 to 24 years; appeal resulted in partial affirmance and a remand (People v. Garcia, nonpub.) to correct credits, stay one count, and amend the abstract.
- On remand in May 2021 counsel (appointed shortly before sentencing) requested more time to prepare a motion under the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA, § 745) and to seek to strike a ten-year firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53) under § 1385; the court denied a continuance.
- The trial court denied the § 1385 motion (striking the enhancement) after considering limited CRJA-related materials counsel submitted, imposed an aggregate 23-year term, and recalculated credits.
- On appeal the parties agree Garcia is entitled to resentencing under amended Penal Code § 1170(b) (Senate Bill 567); Garcia also contends the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to prepare CRJA discovery.
- The Court of Appeal (published in part) held the court abused its discretion in denying a reasonable continuance to prepare a CRJA discovery motion and (unpublished part) ordered resentencing under amended § 1170(b); remanded for resentencing and directed that Garcia be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare CRJA discovery.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia must be resentenced under amended § 1170(b) (SB 567) because the upper term was imposed based on aggravating facts not admitted or found by a jury | People conceded Garcia is entitled to resentencing under the ameliorative SB 567 | Upper-term imposed on an aggravating factor not stipulated to or found beyond a reasonable doubt, so SB 567 requires resentencing | Resentencing required under § 1170(b); SB 567 applies retroactively and Garcia is entitled to resentencing |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance so counsel could develop facts and seek CRJA discovery (§ 745(d)) | Trial court properly denied continuance because counsel was ready and remand limited; CRJA does not apply retroactively to pre-2021 judgments | Counsel lacked time to develop CRJA discovery; CRJA became effective before judgment was entered on remand, so relief is available; continuance needed to develop county-level and record-specific facts | Court abused its discretion by denying a reasonable continuance; remand with directions to grant a reasonable continuance for CRJA discovery (error not harmless) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Flores, 73 Cal.App.5th 1032 (application of ameliorative SB 567 to defendant's case)
- Young v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App.5th 138 (CRJA discovery requires a minimal "plausible factual foundation" showing good cause)
- People v. Alexander, 49 Cal.4th 846 (defendant entitled to reasonable opportunity to prepare; limits on trial-court discretion over continuances)
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (on remand defendant retains normal sentencing rights and consideration of post-judgment circumstances)
- People v. Ramirez, 35 Cal.App.5th 55 (remittitur defines scope of jurisdiction on remand)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (presumption against retroactive application of penal statutes absent express intent)
- People v. Perez, 23 Cal.3d 545 (in criminal cases, judgment is synonymous with imposition of sentence)