65 Cal.App.5th 828
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2013 James Ambrosia Williams was convicted of child abuse and a personal infliction of great bodily injury; the trial court found prior-strike, a prior serious felony, and two prior prison terms and sentenced him to an aggregate 22 years (including a five-year §667(a)(1) enhancement).
- Senate Bill No. 1393 (eff. Jan. 1, 2019) removed a prior statutory prohibition on striking prior serious-felony enhancements under §1385.
- On Sept. 12, 2019, CDCR sent the sentencing court a §1170(d)(1) recommendation to recall and resentence Williams in light of the court’s new authority to decline the §667 enhancement; copies were sent to prosecutor and public defender.
- The sentencing judge, without notifying parties or holding a hearing, entered an unreported minute order recalling the sentence and striking the five-year enhancement; the remainder of the sentence was unchanged.
- The People appealed, arguing the court failed to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, failed to conduct proceedings on the record, and failed to state adequate reasons for striking the enhancement; the Court of Appeal vacated and remanded.
- A concurring opinion agreed the sentence must be vacated for lack of hearing and reasons but disagreed with the majority’s imposition of additional procedural requirements beyond existing law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must give parties notice and opportunity to be heard before acting on a §1170(d)(1) CDCR recommendation | Court abused discretion by recalling/resentencing without notice or hearing | CDCR’s transmittal and copies to counsel sufficed; no mandatory procedure under §1170(d)(1) | Court must provide notice and opportunity; adopt procedures (tentative ruling served with correspondence, time to object and request hearing) |
| Whether proceedings must be on the record / hearing held if requested | Resentencing without parties present and not on the record was improper | No hearing required for mere consideration of equitable recommendation | If parties request hearing, court must hold formal sentencing hearing; if no objection, minute order consistent with tentative ruling is acceptable |
| Whether court stated adequate reasons for striking the §667 enhancement | Minute order lacked factual/legal reasons; violated §1385 and rule requiring reasons | Court relied on statutory authority citation alone as sufficient | Court must state its reasons orally on the record (or in minutes if not reported) when exercising §1385 discretion; failure renders order ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (Cal. 1991) (general rule that court loses jurisdiction after sentence begins and recognized statutory exceptions permitting recall/resentencing)
- People v. McCallum, 55 Cal.App.5th 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard on §1170(d)(1) CDCR recommendations)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (§1385 statement-of-reasons requirement exists to allow appellate review)
- People v. Orin, 13 Cal.3d 937 (Cal. 1975) (purpose of §1385 reasons to prevent improper dismissals)
- People v. Bonnetta, 46 Cal.4th 143 (Cal. 2009) (court must state reasons for sentencing choices)
- People v. Gulbrandsen, 209 Cal.App.3d 1547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (discussing requirement to state reasons when exercising sentencing discretion)