People v. Woodward CA1/2
A167546
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 24, 2024Background
- Johnie Monroe Woodward, Jr. was convicted in 1990 of second-degree murder and other offenses, receiving a sentence that included firearm enhancements and a prior prison term enhancement.
- In 2022, Woodward filed a petition under former section 1171.1 (now section 1172.75) to recall his sentence, arguing that his prison term enhancement was now invalid under new law.
- He independently moved for a full resentencing, requesting that the court strike both his prior prison term and firearm enhancements and impose a modified sentence.
- The trial court granted relief in February 2023, striking the prior prison term enhancement, imposing a new middle term for aggravated assault, and staying the firearm enhancements.
- Woodward appealed, but the Court of Appeal questioned whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant resentencing when the process was initiated by Woodward himself, not by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
- The appellate court concluded that, under prevailing case law, only CDCR can trigger section 1172.75 resentencing, and thus the trial court lacked authority; the resentencing order was vacated and the appeal dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does s. 1172.75 allow a defendant-initiated motion for resentencing? | Woodward: Section 1172.75 justifies resentencing on his motion. | People: Only CDCR can trigger resentencing under the statute. | No; only CDCR initiation allows resentencing. |
| Did trial court have jurisdiction to strike enhancements/stay firearms under s. 1172.75? | Woodward: Trial court had authority to alter enhancements. | People: Court lacked jurisdiction without CDCR initiation. | No jurisdiction; trial court's actions void. |
| Can courts grant relief under s. 1172.75 without CDCR involvement? | Woodward: Direct petition is valid. | People: CDCR referral is required by statute. | CDCR involvement is mandatory. |
| Effect of void order under lack of jurisdiction | Woodward: Appeals invalid actions. | People: Orders are void, not voidable. | Resentencing order vacated as void. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Burgess, 86 Cal.App.5th 375 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (section 1172.75 does not contemplate resentencing relief initiated by the defendant)
- People v. Ford, 61 Cal.4th 282 (Cal. 2015) (court lacks jurisdiction when it has no authority over subject matter)
- People v. Boyd, 103 Cal.App.5th 56 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (orders made without fundamental jurisdiction are void)