People v. Morrison
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 849
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Morrison was convicted of first-degree murder and a firearm enhancement under Penal Code §12022.53(d) (intentional discharge causing death); jury found the enhancement true.
- Original sentence (Sept. 2017): 25 years-to-life for murder + 25 years-to-life for the §12022.53(d) enhancement (total 50 years-to-life).
- After Senate Bill 620 (effective Jan. 1, 2018) amended §12022.53 to permit courts to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements in the interest of justice (§1385), Morrison sought recall/resentencing under §1170(d)(1).
- At resentencing, the trial court recalled the sentence but denied striking the §12022.53(d) enhancement and reimposed the original 50-to-life term.
- Morrison appealed, arguing the court misunderstood its discretion and could have imposed a lesser uncharged enhancement (§12022.53(b) or (c)) instead of the §12022.53(d) term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether, after striking a §12022.53(d) enhancement under §1385, the court may impose a lesser uncharged §12022.53(b) or (c) enhancement | Morrison: Court had discretion to impose a lesser enhancement (10 or 20 years) in lieu of the unstruck §12022.53(d) term when in the interests of justice | People/AG: Trial court properly denied relief and would not have exercised lesser option; remand would be futile | Court: Trial court had authority to impose a lesser uncharged enhancement; record unclear whether court knew this; remand for resentencing so court can exercise informed discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (recognizing §12022.53 enhancement framework and required pleading/finding)
- People v. Fialho, 229 Cal.App.4th 1389 (uncharged lesser enhancement may be imposed when greater enhancement legally inapplicable or unsupported)
- People v. Strickland, 11 Cal.3d 946 (authority recognizing substitution of lesser enhancements)
- People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.App.4th 721 (permitting imposition of different enhancement where statute for greater does not apply)
- People v. Allen, 165 Cal.App.3d 616 (similar principle for arming/weapon enhancements)
- People v. Dixon, 153 Cal.App.4th 985 (substituting alternative enhancement where statutory definition did not fit)
- People v. Marsh, 36 Cal.3d 134 (court may use §1385 to tailor allegations/enhancements to permit alternative dispositions; remand for resentencing appropriate)
- People v. Lua, 10 Cal.App.5th 1004 (remand appropriate where record ambiguous as to court's knowledge of discretion)
- People v. Billingsley, 22 Cal.App.5th 1076 (defendant entitled to sentencing decisions made with informed discretion)
- People v. Fuhrman, 16 Cal.4th 930 (generally disfavoring remand on silent records but recognizing exceptions when law was unsettled)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (trial court discretion to strike priors under §1385 discussed)