People v. Sanchez
200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 368
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Sanchez was convicted of multiple felonies, including murder (count 1), possession of a concealed firearm (count 5), and possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle (count 8); gang enhancements and a 63-years-to-life aggregate sentence were imposed.
- At original sentencing the court imposed a determinate term on count 5 and imposed and stayed a different (longer) term on count 8 pursuant to Penal Code § 654.
- On federal habeas review the district court vacated the conviction on count 5 and remanded for resentencing or retrial on that count.
- At the superior court resentencing the defense requested Sanchez be transported and present; the court denied transport and resentenced in his absence, dismissing count 5 and lifting the § 654 stay on count 8 but changing the previously stayed term for count 8 to a more onerous consecutive term.
- The Court of Appeal held the change to count 8 was a resentencing (not a mere reinstatement of the prior stayed term), that Sanchez was entitled to be present with counsel, vacated the consecutive sentence imposed on count 8, and remanded for resentencing with directions to amend the abstract (including staying count 11 under § 654 and awarding custody credits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to be present and to counsel at resentencing | AG: No prejudice shown from absence; court only lifted a prior stay | Sanchez: Entitled to be present and to consult counsel because court would alter sentence | Court: Defendant was entitled to be present with counsel because the court changed the previously imposed stayed sentence, creating a resentencing that could materially increase punishment |
| Nature of relief on remand after conviction on related count vacated | AG: Court was merely lifting the prior § 654 stay on count 8 | Sanchez: Court's action affected sentence and required presence | Court: Lifting a stay is permissible but here the court changed the previously imposed stayed term to a different, more severe consecutive term — that was resentencing |
| Prejudice and need for remedy | AG: No showing Sanchez would have obtained a better result if present | Sanchez: Absent presence/counsel he was prejudiced because sentence increased | Court: Changing the stayed term to defendant’s detriment demonstrates prejudice; vacated the consecutive sentence on count 8 and remanded for resentencing with defendant present |
| Application of § 654 to count 11 and custody credits | AG: § 654 requires staying execution on gang-count 11; additional custody credits owed for time after original sentencing | Sanchez: Agreed § 654 and credits apply | Court: Ordered abstract amended to reflect § 654 stay on count 11 and directed trial court to award additional credits on resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Robertson, 48 Cal.3d 18 (defendant has constitutional and statutory right to be present at sentencing)
- Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (right to counsel at stages where substantial rights may be affected, including sentencing)
- In re Ralph, 27 Cal.2d 866 (distinguishes mere change of custodian or execution of previously pronounced sentence from resentencing requiring presence)
- People v. Bruner, 9 Cal.4th 1178 (concurrent sentence calculation rule when court fails to designate concurrency or consecutiveness)
- People v. Mesa, 54 Cal.4th 191 (§ 654 precludes separate punishment for gang participation where it merely duplicates punishment for underlying offense)