People v. Mitchell CA1/5, A169329

Angelo Mitchell was convicted in 2003 for three counts of forcible oral copulation, sexual battery, and making criminal threats stemming from a 2002 attack on a nursing student in San Francisco.
The jury found true the aggravated kidnapping allegations and two prior prison term enhancements; he was sentenced to 27 years to life in prison.
After prior appeals and resentencing, a 2022 petition under Penal Code § 1172.75 resulted in the striking of the prior prison enhancements.
At resentencing, Mitchell sought to use amended Penal Code § 654 to have his life sentence on the forcible oral copulation count stayed in favor of shorter, concurrent terms.
The trial court denied the request, citing the severity of the offense, Mitchell's prison record, his conduct while on probation, and rehabilitative evidence.
Both parties agreed that the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect Mitchell’s actual custody and presentence credits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to stay the life sentence on count five (forcible oral copulation) under amended § 654	Sentence was appropriate given the circumstances	Substantial rehabilitative evidence warranted a stay and lesser term	No abuse of discretion; sentence was commensurate with offense and facts
Whether the abstract of judgment should reflect correct custody credits	Court must correct the record as required by law	Agreed, credits should be reflected in the judgment	Abstract to be corrected to include 7,295 actual custody credits plus 115 presentence credits

People v. Caparaz, 80 Cal.App.5th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (trial courts lack authority to stay execution of "One Strike" sentences under § 654)
People v. Govan, 91 Cal.App.5th 1015 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (disagrees with Caparaz, finds § 654 can apply to "One Strike" cases)
People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (Cal. 2007) (standard for reviewing discretionary sentencing decisions)