People v. Renteria CA6
96 Cal.App.5th 1276
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Defendant Wally Renteria was prosecuted in an 86‑count Gilroy gang case; he pleaded/guilty and was convicted on multiple drug, assault, firearm, and gang counts.
- Trial court imposed mostly consecutive terms plus enhancements, including a 5‑year prior serious felony enhancement and several prior prison term enhancements (the latter were stayed); total sentence = 34 years.
- A prior appellate panel affirmed convictions but, in light of SB 136 and SB 1393, reversed in part: it ordered the trial court to strike prior prison term enhancements and to exercise discretion whether to strike the prior serious‑felony enhancement; remittitur issued Oct. 28, 2021.
- On remand (after additional sentencing law changes took effect Jan. 1, 2022), the trial court struck the prior prison enhancements as directed but declined to conduct a full resentencing under the new laws and declined to strike the prior serious‑felony enhancement, finding dismissal would endanger public safety.
- The Attorney General conceded on appeal that resentencing under section 1172.75 (SB 483) was required; the court agreed and remanded for full resentencing but held the trial court did not err in refusing to strike the prior serious‑felony enhancement under amended section 1385.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to conduct a full resentencing under §1172.75 (SB 483) | People: remand instructions and the fact the prior prison enhancements were stayed meant §1172.75 did not require full resentencing | Renteria: §1172.75 applies because prior prison‑term enhancements were "imposed" and thus invalid, entitling him to full resentencing and application of all ameliorative changes | Court: Agreed with AG/defendant — §1172.75 applies ("imposed" includes stayed enhancements); remand for full resentencing required |
| Whether the trial court was required to strike the 5‑year prior serious‑felony enhancement under amended §1385 | People: trial court correctly exercised discretion and could decline to strike because dismissal would endanger public safety | Renteria: §1385(c)(2)(B)&(C) require mandatory dismissal of multiple enhancements and any enhancement that could produce >20‑year sentence, regardless of public‑safety concerns | Court: Rejected Renteria; statutory text and legislative history permit courts to refuse dismissal when dismissal would endanger public safety, so trial court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 ("impose" includes imposed-and-stayed enhancements)
- People v. Jimenez, 9 Cal.5th 53 (de novo review governs statutory interpretation)
- People v. Mani, 74 Cal.App.5th 343 (explaining §654 amendment grants sentencing discretion)
- People v. Lipscomb, 87 Cal.App.5th 9 (concluding public‑safety exception can apply to §1385(c)(2) subparts)
- People v. Mendoza, 88 Cal.App.5th 287 (same; statutory construction favoring public‑safety exception)
- People v. Walker, 86 Cal.App.5th 386 (same view; persuasive on §1385 interpretation)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (statutory construction canons and legislative intent)
- Carmak v. Reynolds, 2 Cal.5th 844 (statutory‑interpretation principles)
- State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 940 (presumption against repeal by implication)
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (legislature does not hide major changes in obscure language)