People v. Mendoza
210 Cal. Rptr. 3d 56
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Juan Victor Mendoza pleaded guilty in two cases (Case A and Case B) and received an aggregate nine-year determinate state prison term in 2012.
- In Case A the court designated a § 186.22(a) count as the principal term (32 months) plus a consecutive five-year prior serious-felony enhancement; other counts in Case A received concurrent 32-month terms with concurrent gang enhancements.
- In Case B the court imposed a 16-month consecutive sentence for a § 11377 Health & Safety Code felony.
- Four years later the trial court granted Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) relief in Case B, reducing that offense to a misdemeanor and resentencing Case B to a one-year county-jail term (deemed served).
- At resentencing the court changed one of Case A’s previously concurrent 32-month terms (count 2) to a consecutive 16-month prison term, producing an aggregate 10-year sentence; Mendoza challenged jurisdiction and the length of the new sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence non‑Prop 47 counts when Proposition 47 relief applied to a subordinate term | Court may reconsider aggregate sentence when Proposition 47 applies; trial court properly restructured terms | Resentencing jurisdiction did not extend to Case A when relief applied to a subordinate term in Case B | Court held it had jurisdiction to resentence any component of the aggregate term when Proposition 47 relief applies to any related count or case |
| Whether the resentencing impermissibly increased defendant’s aggregate sentence beyond the original term | AG conceded the new aggregate exceeded the original and thus violated § 1170.18(e) | Mendoza argued sentence became longer than originally imposed, violating § 1170.18(e) | Court agreed the result exceeded the original aggregate and modified judgment to restore the original aggregate (made Case B concurrent) |
| Whether a trial court may convert previously concurrent terms to consecutive (or vice versa) on Proposition 47 resentencing | Court may revisit and change concurrency decisions when resentencing under § 1170.18 | Mendoza contended such changes were improper here | Court confirmed changing concurrency is permissible when reconsidering the aggregate sentence |
| Whether remand was required or appellate modification was appropriate to effect the trial court’s intent | Appellate modification acceptable where trial court’s intent is clear | Mendoza sought correction consistent with law | Court modified judgment (no remand) to make Case B concurrent, yielding the original nine‑year aggregate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sellner, 240 Cal.App.4th 699 (trial court may resentence subordinate term when Proposition 47 relief applies to the principal term)
- People v. Acosta, 247 Cal.App.4th 1072 (trial court may reconsider sentencing components and enhancements when resentencing under Proposition 47)
- People v. Roach, 247 Cal.App.4th 178 (Proposition 47 resentencing takes defendant back to original sentencing to re-evaluate terms)
- People v. Rouse, 245 Cal.App.4th 292 (same principle regarding resentencing scope under Proposition 47)
- People v. Cortez, 3 Cal.App.5th 308 (court may impose harsher or change concurrency on non‑Prop 47 counts at resentencing)
- People v. Begnaud, 235 Cal.App.3d 1548 (aggregate determinate sentence viewed as interlocking principal and subordinate terms)
- People v. Gutierrez, 46 Cal.App.4th 804 (appellate courts may modify judgments to reflect clear trial court intent)