People v. Guizar-Figueroa CA5, F085758

Humberto Guizar-Figueroa pled no contest to three counts of assault with a semiautomatic weapon, with firearm enhancements, for participating in an armed home invasion and planned kidnapping in 2011.
The crime involved Guizar-Figueroa, his brother, and a third individual entering a family home at gunpoint to force the father to access his pawn shop’s safe the following morning; the crime ended when police intervened.
Evidence showed the plan was premeditated, with cell phone images and statements indicating intent to rob, and conflicting stories about duress and cartel threats.
Guizar-Figueroa was sentenced in 2014 to 29 years and eight months in prison under a plea agreement in exchange for dismissal of additional charges and allegations.
In 2022, CDCR recommended recall of his sentence and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, following evidence of some positive rehabilitation but also disciplinary writeups.
The trial court denied resentencing, finding Guizar-Figueroa still posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying recall and resentencing under § 1172.1	Guizar-Figueroa had shown rehabilitation, positive prison record, no significant criminal history, and mitigating trauma; thus, denial was an abuse of discretion	The People maintained sufficient evidence supported the decision: the crime was violent, defendant had not finished key rehabilitative programs, and discipline issues persisted	Affirmed: The trial court did not abuse its discretion; evidence supported a continued risk of danger despite some positive rehabilitation

People v. Frazier, 55 Cal.App.5th 858 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (abuse of discretion standard for trial court's resentencing decisions under § 1172.1)
People v. Johnson, 12 Cal.5th 544 (Cal. 2022) (abuse of discretion requires showing of arbitrariness or unreasonableness)
People v. Jefferson, 1 Cal.App.5th 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (abuse of discretion standard requires abundant deference to trial court's ruling)
People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (Cal. 2007) (discretion is abused where decision is inconsistent with law or based on impermissible factors)