People v. Monroe
85 Cal.App.5th 393
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- In 2003 Monroe was convicted of first‑degree residential robbery, two counts of false imprisonment by violence, and possession of a firearm by a felon; jury found firearm use enhancements and the trial court later found prior prison terms and a prior serious felony (five‑year) enhancement. He was sentenced in 2005 to 31 years 4 months; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Senate Bill No. 620 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018) gave trial courts discretion under § 1385 to strike certain firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53). Monroe filed an SB 620 motion in 2020; the trial court initially said it lacked jurisdiction to grant it.
- Senate Bill No. 1393 (eff. Jan. 1, 2019) gave courts discretion to strike five‑year prior serious felony enhancements (§ 667(a)(1)). Monroe later sought relief under that law as well.
- Senate Bill No. 483 (effective Jan. 1, 2022) added § 1172.75 (formerly § 1171.1), declaring pre‑2020 § 667.5(b) one‑year prior prison‑term enhancements invalid and requiring recall and resentencing for affected prisoners. Monroe filed for resentencing under SB 483; the trial court struck his three one‑year priors and resentenced him but refused to consider SB 620 relief.
- On appeal the Attorney General conceded Monroe was eligible for SB 620 relief at resentencing but not for SB 1393; the Court of Appeal held Monroe was entitled to a full resentencing under § 1172.75 that includes consideration of both SB 620 and SB 1393, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Monroe’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a resentencing under § 1172.75 (SB 483) permits consideration of striking firearm enhancements under SB 620 | SB 620 applies to any resentencing; AG conceded SB 620 relief available here | SB 620 relief must be considered on resentencing | Yes — resentencing under § 1172.75 must allow SB 620 relief (AG conceded; court agrees). |
| Whether § 1172.75 resentencing permits consideration of striking the five‑year prior serious felony enhancement under SB 1393 | SB 1393 does not independently apply to final convictions and was forfeited; AG argued no relief | SB 1393 relief should be available on resentencing; if forfeited, counsel ineffective | Yes — SB 1393 must be considered at § 1172.75 resentencing; court declines to find forfeiture and rejects AG’s finality argument. |
| Whether resentencing under § 1172.75 is limited to recalling/striking invalidated § 667.5 enhancements or requires a full resentencing applying other ameliorative laws | AG argued limited relief/no full resentencing | Monroe argued for full resentencing applying ameliorative laws (SB 620, SB 1393) | Full resentencing is required under § 1172.75(d)(2); trial court must apply other sentencing changes and exercise discretion accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (full resentencing appropriate when part of a sentence is stricken)
- People v. Johnson, 32 Cal.App.5th 938 (SB 620 does not independently apply to final judgments absent resentencing)
- People v. Hernandez, 34 Cal.App.5th 323 (SB 620 nonretroactivity to final cases discussed)
- People v. Cepeda, 70 Cal.App.5th 456 (resentencing can permit application of SB 1393 to final judgments)
- People v. Pillsbury, 69 Cal.App.5th 776 (SB 620 language extending to any resentencing is an additional basis to apply it)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (forfeiture rule for failure to seek dismissal under § 1385)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (appellate courts may reach unpreserved issues in appropriate circumstances)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (avoid statutory constructions rendering language surplusage)