56 Cal.App.5th 582
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Shaun Reginald Shaw broke into a neighbor’s home with a hatchet, assaulted the resident, and made criminal threats; jury convicted him of first‑degree residential burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, and making a criminal threat.
- At original sentencing Shaw received a total term of 21 years 4 months, which included a mandatory 5‑year serious‑felony prior enhancement and four 1‑year prison‑prior enhancements under former Penal Code § 667.5(b).
- On prior appeal this court affirmed the convictions but remanded for the trial court to consider striking the 5‑year serious‑felony enhancement under Senate Bill No. 1393 (SB 1393).
- At resentencing the trial court declined to strike the 5‑year enhancement, reviewed Shaw’s lengthy criminal history, and imposed an 18‑year term that again included four 1‑year prison‑prior enhancements.
- Shaw appealed the denial of the SB 1393 motion and also raised the effect of Senate Bill No. 136 (SB 136), which eliminated 1‑year enhancements for non‑sexually violent prison priors and applies retroactively.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the SB 1393 motion but held the four 1‑year § 667.5(b) prison‑prior enhancements were unauthorized under SB 136 and remanded for resentencing to permit the trial court to exercise full sentencing discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike the 5‑year serious‑felony prior under SB 1393 | People: trial court reasonably considered offense severity and Shaw’s criminal history and properly declined to strike | Shaw: mitigating factors outweigh aggravation; denial produced an absurdly long sentence | No abuse of discretion; trial court properly evaluated offense and offender and permissibly denied the motion |
| Whether the one‑year prison‑prior enhancements under former § 667.5(b) must be stricken under SB 136 and whether resentencing is required | People: (did not successfully defend continued imposition) SB 136 ameliorates punishment and applies retroactively | Shaw: SB 136 applies retroactively; the four one‑year enhancements are unauthorized and must be stricken; full resentencing required | SB 136 applies retroactively; the four one‑year § 667.5(b) enhancements are unauthorized and must be stricken; remand for full resentencing to permit exercise of sentencing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fritz, 40 Cal.3d 227 (Cal. 1985) (recognized judicial power under § 1385 to strike serious‑felony priors before statutory abrogation)
- People v. Fuentes, 1 Cal.5th 218 (Cal. 2016) (discussed legislative abrogation of Fritz and statutory context)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (SB 1393 intended to align discretion to strike serious‑felony enhancements with courts’ general § 1385 authority)
- People v. Brooks, 53 Cal.App.5th 919 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (review of post‑SB 1393 denial of a motion to strike for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Jackson, 178 Cal.App.3d 694 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (court did not abuse discretion in refusing to strike prior when no mitigating factors justified it)
- People v. Williams, 30 Cal.3d 470 (Cal. 1981) (explaining § 1385 principles: balance defendant’s rights and societal interests)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (retroactivity presumption for ameliorative sentencing statutes)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (when part of a sentence is unauthorized, remand for full resentencing permits trial court to exercise discretion)