People v. Sanders CA2/1, B333626

Edward Anthony Sanders was originally convicted in 2014 for a series of armed robberies in Los Angeles County and sentenced to 22 years, eight months.
The sentence included enhancements for firearm use and a now-invalid one-year enhancement for a prior prison term under Penal Code § 667.5(b), as well as other charges tied to weapons possession and receiving stolen property.
Due to changes in California law, including Senate Bill No. 136 and subsequent statutory amendments, the prior prison term enhancement became inapplicable unless based on prior sexually violent offenses.
Sanders petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.75, presenting evidence of rehabilitation and positive post-conviction behavior.
At resentencing, the court struck the invalid prior prison term enhancement and one firearm enhancement, reducing the sentence to 18 years, four months, but declined to strike further enhancements due to public safety concerns.
Sanders appealed, seeking a new resentencing hearing based on the California Supreme Court’s clarification of sentencing standards in People v. Walker, and argued for correction of his presentence custody credits.

Issue	Sanders's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing should be redone in light of People v. Walker	Sanders argued the court may not have properly understood its discretion after Walker clarified standards for striking enhancements	The state argued Walker did not change the scope of discretion in a way that benefits Sanders	Remand not required; Walker does not alter the discretion so as to benefit Sanders
Whether the trial court correctly applied Penal Code § 1385’s standards for striking enhancements	Sanders asserted the court might not have fully applied the existing presumption favoring striking enhancements where mitigating factors exist	The state asserted the court had full discretion and applied it appropriately at the time of resentencing	The court properly exercised discretion; no new hearing necessary
Whether Sanders’s presentence custody credits were correctly calculated	Sanders argued the court undercounted his presentence credits by two days	The state agreed with Sanders	Correction ordered: abstract of judgment to be amended
The effect of rehabilitation and mitigating factors on sentencing	Sanders presented evidence of post-conviction rehabilitation as a basis for further sentence reduction	The state cited Sanders's criminal history and prison violations as justification for not striking more enhancements	Court considered but ultimately declined to reduce sentence further due to public safety concerns

People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (entitlement to sentencing decisions made with informed discretion)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (standard of review for sentencing decisions is abuse of discretion)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify entire sentence not just the recalled portion)