People v. Green CA5
F083294
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 9, 2022Background
- In 1998 Green was convicted of multiple robberies, related offenses, gang enhancements, and prior "strike" and serious-felony priors; after a 2015 resentencing he received an effective term of 45 years 8 months.
- On February 18, 2021 the CDCR Secretary sent the sentencing court a recommendation to recall Green’s sentence and resentence him based on exceptional conduct in custody.
- The People opposed; the trial court held argument, received supplemental briefs, and on August 19, 2021 declined to exercise its discretion to recall and resentence. Green appealed.
- While the appeal was pending the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1540, which relocated the recall/resentencing authority from former § 1170(d)(1) to new § 1170.03 and added procedural protections (hearing, appointment of counsel, on-the-record reasons, and a rebuttable presumption favoring recall unless the court finds the defendant an unreasonable risk).
- The Court of Appeal followed People v. McMurray and concluded the proper remedy was to vacate the trial court’s order and remand for reconsideration under § 1170.03; the court did not decide whether AB 1540 is retroactive under In re Estrada.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must reconsider the CDCR recommendation in light of AB 1540’s procedural and substantive changes | People agreed to remand so the trial court can apply the new statute but argued AB 1540 is not retroactive under Estrada | Green asked the court to vacate the denial and remand so the trial court applies AB 1540 (including presumption, hearing, counsel, and statement of reasons) | The Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for reconsideration under § 1170.03; it did not resolve retroactivity under Estrada |
| Whether courts must apply the clarified procedures (hearing, counsel, statement of reasons) when CDCR requests recall | People originally opposed relief but accepted remand for reconsideration under the new statute | Green contended the new procedural protections should govern the CDCR-initiated resentencing process | The court held the matter should be reconsidered under § 1170.03, which requires those procedures |
| Whether a remand is required where the trial court gave no on-the-record reasons for denying recall | People argued remand appropriate to apply new statute; argued retroactivity issue separately | Green argued lack of reasons compounded need to remand under the clarified statutory scheme | The court found remand appropriate, particularly because the trial court did not state reasons for denying recall, and to allow application of § 1170.03 procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McMurray, 76 Cal.App.5th 1035 (discusses relocation to § 1170.03 and remand approach)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (retroactivity presumption framework)
- People v. Loper, 60 Cal.4th 1155 (2015) (CDCR recommendation supplies jurisdictional basis for recall)
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (1991) (principles on court jurisdiction and equitable relief)
- People v. Frazier, 55 Cal.App.5th 858 (2020) (prior appellate decisions on procedural requirements under former § 1170(d)(1))
- People v. McCallum, 55 Cal.App.5th 202 (2020) (same)
- Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (1997) (remand principles)