People v. Johnson 104/22 CA3 Case Details
299 Cal.Rptr.3d 894
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2018 Senate Bill No. 620 amended Penal Code §§ 12022.53 and 12022.5 to allow trial courts, pursuant to § 1385, to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements at sentencing.
- Defendant Fredrick Lamar Johnson (convicted in 2002) admitted seven § 12022.53(b) firearm-use enhancements and was resentenced; the trial court declined to strike any enhancements and was not asked about substituting lesser enhancements.
- After People v. Tirado (2022) clarified that courts may impose lesser uncharged enhancements within § 12022.53 when striking a greater § 12022.53 enhancement, Johnson argued the court could instead substitute uncharged § 12022.5(a) enhancements for stricken § 12022.53(b) enhancements.
- The Attorney General contended § 12022.53(j) prohibits substituting a § 12022.5 enhancement once a § 12022.53 enhancement has been found true.
- The Third District Court of Appeal held trial courts do have discretion to impose an uncharged § 12022.5(a) enhancement after striking a § 12022.53 enhancement and remanded for resentencing so the trial court can exercise informed discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may impose an uncharged § 12022.5(a) enhancement after striking a § 12022.53(b) enhancement | § 12022.53(j) requires punishments for § 12022.53 enhancements to be imposed under that section, so substitution with § 12022.5(a) is barred | Tirado and legislative intent grant sentencing courts broad § 1385 discretion to strike § 12022.53 enhancements and impose lesser uncharged enhancements (including § 12022.5) if facts were alleged/found | Court: Yes; after striking all § 12022.53 enhancements under § 12022.53(h), a court may impose an uncharged § 12022.5(a) enhancement if the underlying facts were alleged and found true |
| Whether Tirado precludes substituting a § 12022.5(a) enhancement for a stricken § 12022.53 enhancement | Tirado relied on § 12022.53(j) and concerned lesser enhancements within § 12022.53 only, so it does not authorize substitution to § 12022.5 | Tirado’s reasoning (and precedent like Strickland/Fialho) supports using facts underlying a stricken enhancement to impose a lesser uncharged enhancement, even under a different statute | Court: Tirado informs but does not control this question; its reasoning supports permissive substitution when statutory/factual prerequisites are met |
| Whether § 12022.53(f) and (j) permanently bar imposition of lesser non-§12022.53 enhancements once a § 12022.53 enhancement was found true | Those mandatory subsections require the harsher § 12022.53 punishment be imposed when a § 12022.53 enhancement is found true | If the court strikes the § 12022.53 enhancements under § 12022.53(h), there is no remaining § 12022.53 enhancement to which (f) or (j) apply, so they do not block substitution | Court: Those subsections do not apply after the court has validly stricken the § 12022.53 enhancement(s); substitution is therefore not prohibited by (f) or (j) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tirado, 12 Cal.5th 688 (Cal. 2022) (interpreting §12022.53(h) to permit imposition of lesser uncharged §12022.53 enhancements after striking a greater §12022.53 enhancement)
- People v. Fialho, 229 Cal.App.4th 1389 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (upholding imposition of uncharged §12022.5(a) after a §12022.53 enhancement was found true but inapplicable to the conviction)
- People v. Strickland, 11 Cal.3d 946 (Cal. 1974) (trial court may impose an uncharged enhancement when prosecution proved facts supporting it even if not specifically pleaded)
- People v. Morrison, 34 Cal.App.5th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (construing §12022.53(h) and §1385 to allow courts to fashion intermediate enhancements under §12022.53)
- People v. Marsh, 36 Cal.3d 134 (Cal. 1984) (broad description of §1385 sentencing discretion)