People v. Roach
247 Cal. App. 4th 178
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jesse Roach had convictions in three separate Marin County cases involving firearm possession, receiving stolen property, methamphetamine possession, reckless driving while evading, and DUI; some counts were felonies at sentencing.
- In Sept 2014 the trial court imposed an aggregate determinate state-prison term of 4 years 4 months by selecting a principal term and adding consecutive subordinate terms.
- After Proposition 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18) took effect, Roach petitioned to recall and resentence two felony convictions now eligible to be misdemeanors; the People conceded eligibility.
- In March 2015 the trial court reduced the two eligible felonies to misdemeanors but recalculated the aggregate sentence under the determinate-sentencing scheme and imposed the same aggregate term (4 years 4 months).
- Roach appealed, arguing § 1170.18 required an overall shorter aggregate sentence when components qualify for resentencing and raising related sentencing-procedure objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170.18 bars a trial court from imposing the same aggregate term on resentencing when one or more components are reduced to misdemeanors | The People (Respondent) argued the trial court properly recalculated the aggregate term under existing sentencing law | Roach argued § 1170.18 must be read to require a shorter overall sentence when qualifying felonies are reduced | Court held § 1170.18 does not prohibit imposing the same aggregate term; trial court may reconsider all components and select a new principal term consistent with § 1170 et seq. |
| Whether trial court misapplied § 1170.18 by finding the petitioner outside the statute’s scope or failing to exercise discretion holistically | People maintained the court correctly found the overall course of conduct warranted the same aggregate term and exercised discretion | Roach claimed the court failed to consider concurrency and improperly justified keeping the original aggregate sentence | Court held the judge did not err; sentencing choices were reconsidered, and Roach forfeited many objections by not raising them below |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. Ct. App.) (background on Prop. 47 and § 1170.18 resentencing)
- People v. Sellner, 240 Cal.App.4th 699 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court may redesignate principal term and reconsider aggregate sentence on § 1170.18 resentencing)
- People v. Burbine, 106 Cal.App.4th 1250 (Cal. Ct. App.) (on remand after reversal trial court may reconsider all sentencing choices and may impose same aggregate term)
- People v. Bustamante, 30 Cal.3d 88 (Cal.) (select next most serious conviction as principal term on remand)
- People v. Garner, 244 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Ct. App.) (analogy to other resentencing initiatives: court may reconsider all charges)
- People v. Kelly, 72 Cal.App.4th 842 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court may keep in mind a sentence it thinks appropriate while following statutory guidelines)