People v. Rouse
245 Cal. App. 4th 292
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Rouse pleaded guilty to four felonies (including commercial burglary) and admitted prior strikes and prior prison terms; he was sentenced to five years in state prison.
- Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) reclassified certain theft-related felonies as misdemeanors and created Penal Code §1170.18 to allow resentencing for those "currently serving" felony sentences.
- Rouse filed a §1170.18(a) petition pro se, asserting his burglary qualified as misdemeanor shoplifting; he waived presence at resentencing but did not expressly waive counsel.
- At the December 26, 2014 hearing the court found Rouse eligible, amended the burglary count to a misdemeanor, vacated the prior sentence, and resentenced Rouse to five years again — with the hearing held without defense counsel or Rouse present; the prosecutor appeared.
- Rouse appealed, arguing he was denied the right to counsel at the resentencing hearing; the court considered whether counsel is required at the §1170.18 resentencing stage when the court may restructure the entire sentencing package.
- The Court of Appeal reversed as to sentencing and remanded for a new resentencing with appointed counsel if Rouse cannot afford one, holding the right to counsel attaches at resentencing when multiple felony counts give the court discretion to restructure the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach at a §1170.18(a) resentencing hearing? | Respondent: §1170.18 is a narrow postconviction lenity remedy; no Sixth Amendment right attaches because it only authorizes a downward modification. | Rouse: Resentencing is a critical stage with substantial rights at stake; counsel is necessary to protect against prejudice when the court restructures sentence. | Court: Yes. When resentencing under §1170.18(a) results in a new, plenary sentencing on multiple counts the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches. |
| If Sixth Amendment doesn't apply, does due process require counsel at resentencing? | Respondent: Not necessary; remedy is statutory and limited. | Rouse: Due process requires counsel where an indigent petitioner faces proceedings that can affect substantial rights. | Court: Yes. Even if not Sixth Amendment, due process supports appointment of counsel at resentencing in cases like this. |
| Does the right to counsel attach at the eligibility phase of §1170.18 petition? | Respondent: (implicit) Only eligibility matters and is nonadversarial. | Rouse: (not argued here) | Court: Reserved — expresses no opinion on counsel at eligibility stage. |
| Does the right apply to petitioners who already completed their sentence (subd. (f))? | Respondent: (not argued) | Rouse: (not raised) | Court: Reserved — expresses no opinion on persons who completed their sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doolin v. Ruiz, 45 Cal.4th 390 (sentencing is a critical stage; right to counsel applies at sentencing)
- Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (right to counsel at sentencing-related critical stages)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (statutory sentence-reduction proceedings under federal law may not constitute plenary resentencing)
- People v. Superior Court (Kaulick), 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (applied Dillon to Proposition 36 resentencing as lenity remedy)
- People v. Marshall, 15 Cal.4th 1 (right to counsel is self-executing and waiver must be clear)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (due process may require counsel appointment where a postconviction petition states a prima facie case)