People v. Lake CA4/1, D078734

Darius Lake was convicted by jury of 10 counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery; prior federal bank robbery convictions were found to be three strikes and one prior serious felony triggering five‑year enhancements.
Original sentence (June 15, 2018): five years plus 25 years‑to‑life on each count, with an aggregate term of 25 years plus 125 years‑to‑life.
On appeal this court rejected Batson and prosecutorial misconduct claims but remanded so the trial court could exercise discretion to strike the five‑year prior‑felony enhancements after a change in the law.
On remand the trial judge (same judge) issued an ex parte order striking all five‑year enhancements, resentencing Lake in his absence, and declined to consider mental‑health diversion as beyond the remand’s scope.
The People concede, and this court agrees, the record shows Lake appears to meet the threshold qualifying‑mental‑disorder requirement, so the judgment is conditionally reversed and remanded for a limited diversion eligibility hearing under Penal Code section 1001.36.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand is required for a mental‑health diversion eligibility hearing under Penal Code §1001.36	People: Remand warranted to consider diversion	Lake: Remand required because record shows qualifying mental disorder	Court: Limited remand ordered; record shows threshold eligibility and Frahs supports hearing
Whether resentencing in Lake’s absence required reversal	People: Absence harmless because court granted maximum relief by striking enhancements	Lake: Deprivation of right to be present was prejudicial	Court: Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no reversal for absence
Whether Lake is entitled to a full resentencing under amended §1385	People: Amendments not applicable because sentencing events occurred before effective date	Lake: Recent §1385 amendments entitle him to full resentencing	Court: Amendments do not apply retroactively here; no full resentencing required
Whether the resentencing judge must be disqualified and a different judge assigned	People: No basis for disqualification; interests of justice do not require change	Lake: Judge showed bias and should be recused	Court: No disqualification; no evidence of animus or inability to be impartial

People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (defendant who appears to meet threshold mental‑disorder requirement is entitled to limited remand for diversion eligibility hearing)
People v. Simms, 23 Cal.App.5th 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (harmless‑error framework for deprivation of right to be present at sentencing)
Peracchi v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1245 (Cal. 2003) (appellate disqualification of sentencing judges is disfavored and sparingly used)
People v. Gulbrandsen, 209 Cal.App.3d 1547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (judge’s sentencing decisions must show animus or whimsical disregard to require disqualification)
People v. LaBlanc, 238 Cal.App.4th 1059 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (same principle regarding judicial impartiality at sentencing)
People v. Fedalizo, 246 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (defendant’s right to be present at sentencing)
People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (court’s authority to strike or dismiss prior strike convictions for sentencing purposes)
In re Cheryl E., 161 Cal.App.3d 587 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (party cannot complain on appeal about relief it never requested)