People v. Johnson CA6, H048335

In 2004 Johnson was convicted of two attempted first‑degree robberies, first‑degree burglary, aggravated assault, transportation of a controlled substance, and a misdemeanor assault; he had prior strikes and priors found true.
Original sentence included indeterminate terms yielding 58 years‑to‑life (later corrected to 57 years‑to‑life), with a consecutive 25‑to‑life for the transportation count and concurrent 25‑to‑life terms for the two robberies.
Under Proposition 36 (§1170.126) Johnson petitioned for resentencing (filed 2014 and 2017; court found good cause for the late petition) and the court held a 2020 resentencing hearing.
Defense submitted limited prison records (some program participation in 2015, one year disciplinary‑free, no institutional work history); the People conceded eligibility but urged the court to run the robbery terms consecutively to effectuate the original judge’s view of a 50‑to‑life exposure.
The superior court stated it would “defer to Judge Scott” but acknowledged it had discretion, then resentenced: concurrent determinate term for the transportation count and consecutive 25‑to‑life terms for the two attempted robberies, for a total of 50 years‑to‑life.
Johnson appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to exercise independent judgment and by failing to consider his post‑conviction conduct; the majority affirmed, a dissent would have reversed and remanded.

Issue	People’s Argument	Johnson’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by deferring to the original sentencing judge and failing to exercise independent resentencing discretion	Trial court may consider prior sentence and defer to original judge’s view; court explicitly recognized its discretion and independently concluded 50‑to‑life was appropriate	Trial court improperly deferred to Judge Scott and refused to exercise independent sentencing discretion	No abuse of discretion: court acknowledged its authority and independently determined 50‑to‑life appropriate; affirmed
Whether the court failed to consider Johnson’s post‑conviction conduct (disciplinary and rehabilitative record) and thereby violated due process	People conceded eligibility and noted prison record; prosecution argued prison conduct supported continuing danger and favored original aggregate exposure	Johnson contends the court did not consider his prison conduct and therefore failed to follow §1170.126(g) factors and violated due process	No due process violation: appellate court presumed the trial court considered the evidence (record not showing refusal to consider) and found defense evidence of post‑conviction conduct was limited and unpersuasive

People v. Yanaga, 58 Cal.App.5th 619 (2020) (resentencing court expressly refused to consider post‑conviction conduct)
People v. Stowell, 31 Cal.4th 1107 (2003) (presumption that trial court was aware of and followed applicable law)
People v. Fuhrman, 16 Cal.4th 930 (1997) (when record is silent, appellate courts presume trial court properly understood and applied the law)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (1994) (remand required when sentencing court errs in identifying or articulating its choices unless error is nonprejudicial)
People v. Hubbard, 27 Cal.App.5th 9 (2018) (defendant entitled to trial court’s consideration of all aspects at Proposition 36 resentencing)
People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (2007) (all intendments and presumptions indulged to support a judgment when the record is silent)