People v. Hubbard
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Sidney Scott Hubbard, a three‑strikes inmate, had earlier received an indeterminate life sentence for attempted robbery and reckless evasion, with multiple prior enhancements.
- Hubbard petitioned for recall/resentencing under Prop. 36 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126); appellate proceedings found one count (reckless evasion) eligible for resentencing.
- On remand the trial court limited its authority to resentencing only the reckless evasion count and refused to reconsider the rest of the original sentencing scheme (including strikes, concurrent sentencing, section 654, or Romero relief under § 1385).
- The trial court resentenced: the attempted robbery remained a consecutive indeterminate 25‑to‑life term; reckless evasion received an upper term doubled by a strike plus enhancements, yielding a 12‑year determinate term.
- Hubbard appealed, arguing the trial court should have considered all aspects of his aggregate sentence at resentencing (including exercising § 1385, concurrent sentence decisions, and § 654), relying on People v. Garner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Hubbard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing under § 1170.126 is limited to the eligible count or may encompass the entire sentencing scheme | Resentencing applies count‑by‑count; court should only resentence the eligible conviction | Once sentence is recalled under Prop. 36, trial court may reconsider the entire sentencing scheme, not just the eligible count | Court held the trial court must be permitted to consider the entire sentencing scheme at resentencing and remanded for full resentencing |
| Whether the trial court could exercise discretion under § 1385 / Romero at resentencing | Opposed; argued Romero motion had been previously denied and not open for reconsideration on remand | Argued trial court had jurisdiction to revisit Romero/§ 1385 relief during resentencing | Court agreed with Hubbard that the trial court could exercise its sentencing discretion, including Romero/§ 1385, on remand |
| Whether concurrent sentences and application of Penal Code § 654 should be considered on resentencing | Resentencing limited to eligible count; concurrent/§ 654 issues not subject to relitigation | Court should reassess concurrent sentences and § 654 application as part of full resentencing | Court held reconsideration of concurrent sentencing and § 654 application is appropriate on remand |
| Scope of Johnson decision vis‑à‑vis full resentencing | Johnson limits resentencing to eligibility determination and supports count‑by‑count approach | Johnson addressed only eligibility and does not bar full resentencing reconsideration | Court found Johnson does not prohibit reconsideration of the entire sentencing scheme at resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garner, 244 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court may reconsider entire sentencing scheme on resentencing)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (trial court must generally resentence and reevaluate applicability of prior‑felony enhancements on resentencing)
- People v. Johnson, 61 Cal.4th 674 (Cal. 2015) (presence of serious or violent felony does not disqualify inmate from resentencing as to a nonserious, nonviolent current offense)
- People v. Burbine, 106 Cal.App.4th 1250 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (on remand for resentencing, trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial court has discretion under § 1385 to dismiss strikes in the interest of justice)