B343835
Cal. Ct. App.
Aug 4, 2026
Read the full case

Background

  • Johnson was convicted in 1996 of murdering Danielle Washington, attempting to murder Frederick Walker, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. 1
  • At the original sentencing, the court imposed 75 years four months to life, including a doubled strike term, firearm enhancements, and a prison prior. 2
  • After CDCR identified him as eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75, Johnson sought to strike his strike, firearm enhancements, and upper terms, supported by rehabilitation and risk-assessment materials. 3
  • The prosecution conceded only the prison prior should be stricken and relied on Johnson's violent criminal history and prison misconduct to oppose further reduction. 4
  • At resentencing, the court struck the prison prior and five-year prior, but found further reduction would endanger public safety and reimposed the upper term on count 2 and the firearm enhancements. 5
  • The court later corrected credits in the minute order, but the amended abstract still misstated the resentencing date and credits. 6

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the court abused discretion by refusing to strike Johnson's prior strike 7 People said Johnson remained within Three Strikes spirit Johnson said his rehabilitation and aging warranted dismissal No abuse; record supported keeping the strike 8
Whether the court abused discretion by refusing to strike firearm enhancements 9 People said public safety and offense circumstances justified denial Johnson said multiple enhancements and childhood trauma required dismissal No abuse; court could find public safety danger and no justice-based dismissal 10
Whether the court erred in reimposing the upper term 11 People said section 1172.75 allowed reimposition of the original upper term Johnson said new factfinding and Sixth Amendment rules barred it No error; upper term properly reimposed 12
Whether the abstract of judgment required correction 13 People agreed the abstract misstated credits and resentencing date Johnson sought correction Yes; remanded to correct the abstract 14

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Rhodius, 17 Cal.5th 1050 (Cal. 2025) (section 1172.75 requires full resentencing 15)
  • People v. Monroe, 85 Cal.App.5th 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (same 16)
  • People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion review for strike decisions 17)
  • People v. Garcia, 101 Cal.App.5th 848 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (section 1172.75 resentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion 18)
  • People v. Ramirez, 10 Cal.5th 983 (Cal. 2021) (trial court presumed to know and follow the law 19)
  • People v. Lee, 16 Cal.App.5th 861 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (appellant bears burden to show abuse of discretion 20)
  • People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998) (court must consider nature of offenses, background, character, and prospects under Three Strikes 21)
  • People v. Mayfield, 50 Cal.App.5th 1096 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (strike dismissals are reserved for extraordinary circumstances 22)
  • People v. Dain, 115 Cal.App.5th 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) (similar three-strikes analysis rejecting outside-spirit claim 23)
  • People v. Walker, 16 Cal.5th 1024 (Cal. 2024) (section 1385(c)(2) mitigation and public-safety framework for enhancements 24)
  • People v. Ortiz, 87 Cal.App.5th 1087 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (dismissal not required when countervailing factors neutralize mitigation 25)
  • People v. Gonzalez, 103 Cal.App.5th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (public-safety finding under section 1385(c)(2) 26)
  • People v. Renteria, 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (section 1385(c)(2) allows refusal to strike where public safety is endangered 27)
  • People v. Mendoza, 88 Cal.App.5th 287 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (mitigating factors need not be considered if dismissal endangers public safety 28)
  • People v. Anderson, 88 Cal.App.5th 233 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (no elevated burden for public-safety finding under section 1385(c)(2) 29)
  • People v. Mazur, 97 Cal.App.5th 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (court may consider offense circumstances and defendant's background when deciding dismissal 30)
  • People v. Brannon-Thompson, 104 Cal.App.5th 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (section 1172.75 allows reimposition of an original upper term without new factfinding 31)
  • People v. Mathis, 111 Cal.App.5th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) (original upper-term sentencing under former section 1170(b) did not violate the Sixth Amendment 32)
  • People v. Dozier, 116 Cal.App.5th 700 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) (pre-2007 upper terms may be reimposed under section 1172.75 without heightened factfinding 33)
  • People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001) (appellate court may order correction of an inaccurate abstract of judgment 34)
  • People v. Moore, 226 Cal.App.3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (conduct credits may be corrected on appeal 35)
  • People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (three-strikes dismissal discretion 36)
Read the full case