96 Cal.App.5th 33
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 1999 Patrick Allen Trent was convicted by jury of first degree murder and street terrorism; enhancements for personal knife use and gang-motivated murder were found not true.
- The murder conviction was later reduced to second degree (People v. Chiu), shortening his aggregate term; in July 2020 Trent petitioned for resentencing under former §1170.95 (now §1172.6).
- The trial court granted the petition, vacated the murder conviction, redesignated the offense as felony assault likely to cause great bodily injury (§245) with a great bodily injury enhancement (§12022.7), and resentenced Trent to 6 years 8 months (March 28, 2022).
- Trent appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by not applying Assembly Bill 333 retroactively to vacate his §186.22 (street terrorism/gang) conviction, and (2) the court improperly imposed an uncharged great bodily injury enhancement at redesignation; he also sought correction of the abstract of judgment.
- The Court of Appeal held AB 333 applies retroactively to Trent’s case once the murder conviction was vacated under §1172.6, reversed the §186.22 conviction and remanded for possible retrial under the amended law; it affirmed the imposition of the GBH enhancement on redesignation and ordered correction of the abstract to show convictions were by jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Assembly Bill 333 to §186.22 conviction after vacatur under §1172.6 | Vacatur of murder does not render long-final gang conviction nonfinal for Estrada retroactivity | Vacatur under §1172.6 makes the judgment nonfinal; Estrada presumption applies and AB 333 must be applied | Court agrees with defendant: vacated murder makes judgment nonfinal; AB 333 applies retroactively; §186.22 conviction reversed and remanded for possible retrial |
| Imposition of uncharged great bodily injury enhancement at redesignation | The court may redesignate and impose enhancements proven beyond a reasonable doubt at resentencing; §1172.6 allows full resentencing discretion | Imposing an uncharged enhancement violates jury trial, notice, and due process rights | Court rejects defendant’s challenge; follows Howard—§1172.6(e) does not preclude imposing enhancements at redesignation and affirms GBH enhancement |
| Forfeiture / Ineffective assistance (failure to object below to enhancement) | Forfeiture; defendant did not preserve the issue and fails to show counsel ineffective | Counsel was ineffective for failing to object; substantial rights affected | Court addresses the merits despite forfeiture claim, finds no reversible error and affirms enhancement |
| Abstract of judgment accuracy | People agree abstract should be corrected | Defendant requests correction to show convictions were by jury | Court orders amended abstract to reflect convictions were by jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 13 Cal.5th 152 (Cal. 2022) (vacatur of sentence renders judgment nonfinal for retroactivity of ameliorative laws)
- Cooper v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.5th 735 (Cal. 2023) (Assembly Bill 333 amended substantive gang law; failure to instruct on new elements requires reversal)
- Arellano v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.5th 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (held redesignation under §1172.6(e) does not authorize inclusion of uncharged enhancements)
- Howard v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.App.5th 727 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (held trial court may impose enhancements at resentencing/redesignation under §1172.6)
- Keel v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.5th 546 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (applied ameliorative laws at resentencing after murder vacatur under §1172.6)
- Ramirez v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.App.5th 970 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (vacatur under §1172.6 reopens judgment for retroactivity; full resentencing rule applies)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption that ameliorative statutes apply to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (legal rule prompting reduction of certain murder convictions)