People v. Talley CA2/7, B304017

Clinton Talley was convicted of making a criminal threat (felony), stalking (felony), and 25 misdemeanor violations of a protective order; he admitted a prior serious felony under § 667(a)(1).
At initial sentencing the court imposed an 11‑year state prison term (upper term doubled under the three‑strikes law plus a five‑year § 667(a)(1) enhancement) and lengthy consecutive county‑jail terms on misdemeanors; 16 misdemeanor convictions were later reversed as time‑barred on appeal.
On remand the trial court—familiar with the case—declined to strike the five‑year prior‑serious‑felony enhancement and imposed 11 years in state prison plus 3,276 days in county jail (364 days consecutive on each misdemeanor), staying the stalking sentence under § 654.
The court explained the denial and consecutive sentences by reference to Talley’s criminal history, prior threats against the same victim (including while incarcerated), unsatisfactory probation performance, and concern for victim safety.
At resentencing Talley objected that he could not pay statutory fines, fees, and assessments; the court reduced several fees and the victim restitution fine but refused to find inability to pay because Talley presented no supporting evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of § 667(a)(1) enhancement; ineffective assistance	Sentencing court properly considered offender/offense and acted within discretion	Talley says counsel failed to present mitigating facts so court didn’t consider them; asserts ineffective assistance	Affirmed. No abuse of discretion; court considered relevant factors; Talley failed to show counsel’s omissions caused prejudice
Cruel and/or unusual punishment for aggregate ~20‑year sentence	Sentence is lawful and proportional given convictions, recidivism, and statutory ranges	Aggregate sentence grossly disproportionate (letters while incarcerated, no weapon/injury, mostly misdemeanor history)	Rejected. Eighth Amendment and state‑constitutional challenge fails; heavy burden not met
Imposition of fines, fees, assessments over inability‑to‑pay objection	Court may impose statutory fines absent evidence of inability; defendant bears burden to contest and present evidence	Talley claims Dueñas rights violated and counsel ineffective for not proving indigency	Affirmed. Talley presented no evidence of inability to pay; court reduced some amounts; ineffective‑assistance claim fails on silent record

People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (clarifies trial court may strike § 667(a)(1) enhancement in furtherance of justice)
People v. Brugman, 62 Cal.App.5th 608 (review of denial to strike § 667(a)(1) is abuse‑of‑discretion)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (standards for reviewing discretionary sentencing decisions)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (narrow proportionality principle for noncapital sentences)
In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (three‑factor test for state‑constitutional cruel or unusual punishment review)
People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (due process requires consideration of ability to pay before imposing certain assessments)
People v. Castellano, 33 Cal.App.5th 485 (defendant bears burden to contest and present evidence of inability to pay)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard requiring prejudice)