THE PEOPLE,
A163046
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 11/10/22
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 16NF003723A)
In
for discovery under the California Raсial Justice Act of 2020 (Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 1) (CRJA).
In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude defendant was entitled to a reasonable continuance to prepare his motion for discovery under the CRJA. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we conclude defendant is also entitled to resentencing under
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was arrested after engaging in a physical altercation at his home with the partner of his sister, and then firing a semiautomatic handgun at one of the responding police officers. He was charged by information with nine felony counts, as follows: assault on a peace officer with a semiautоmatic firearm (
In March 2021, defendant filed a motion in pro per under
On May 14, 2021, defendant filed his sentencing brief as well as a motion to continue the sentencing hearing. In her declaration supporting the continuance motion, Guraiib stated her intеntion “to argue additional matters within the jurisdiction of the court such as a request to strike the enhancement allegation pursuant to [section] 12022.53 as well as argue matters under [section] [745] that would be crucial for the court‘s analysis under what is considered in the ‘interest of justice’ for purposes of the imposition of the enhancement. I am unable to obtain information that would support those arguments in a two-day timeframe afforded to briefing the issues.”
In his sentencing brief, defendant argued in relevant part that he had recourse under
the defendant‘s race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.” In support, thе brief cited and attached various reports, articles, and research on racial disparities in the criminal justice system.2
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard arguments from counsel, including Guraiib‘s remarks that “there‘s a new law that just passed in January of 2021 that shows that usually Latinos or the Latino population that are being sentenced are being sentenced harsher than their counterparts. And that also is in front of the Court.” The court began its remarks by stating it did not believe it had jurisdiction to strike the firearm use enhancement
Taking “into consideration the new racial animus act,” the trial court acknowledged that defense counsel did not have “time to really flesh out the statistics” bearing out that “people of color are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system.” The court also indicated it considered the evidence of defendant‘s good character while in prison, but found nevertheless that defendant‘s lack of remorse, his unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions, his prior criminal record, and the violent nature of the offense
warranted the enhancement. Accordingly, the court denied the
As to the issues on remand, the trial court stayed the sentence on count five, recalculated defendant‘s custody credits, and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 23 years in prison.
This appeal followed.3
DISCUSSION
A. Resentencing Under Section 1170
Defendant argues, and the People agree, that he should be resentenced under
Under the law in effect at the time defendant was initially sentenced in 2018,
Here, the sentencing court chose the upper term of nine years on count one based on the aggravating circumstance that the offense involved a threat of great bodily injury to multiple individuals. Defendant argues, and the
People do not dispute, that he never stipulated to this finding, and the People concede there was no trial in which the circumstance in aggravation was found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The parties further agree that because Senate Bill 567 is ameliorative, and because there is no indication the Legislature intended it to apply prospectively only, the new law applies retroactively to defеndant. (People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1039.)
We agree and conclude defendant is entitled to resentencing under
B. Denial of Continuance
Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance to enable him to develop facts in support of a motion for discovery under the CRJA. We agree.
1. Overview of CRJA
Effective January 1, 2021, the CRJA prohibits state criminal convictions or sentences “on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.” (
commit similar offenses and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more sеrious offenses against people who share the defendant‘s race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained“; or (4) “[a] longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and lоnger or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendant‘s race, ethnicity, or national origin” or “on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin[s],” in the county where the sentence was imposed. (
“A defendant may file a motion in the trial court or, if judgment has been imposed, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7 in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a).” (
The CRJA also contains the following discovery provision: “A defendant may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section shall describe the type of records or information the defendant seeks. Upon a showing of good
cause, the court shall order thе records to be released. Upon a showing of good cause, and if the records are not privileged, the court may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure.” (
In Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138 (Young), Division Four of our appellate district held that the good cause requirement for discovery under the CRJA, like the showing
2. Analysis
Although trial courts enjoy broad discretion to determine whether good cause exists to grant a continuance of trial, such discretion “‘may not be exercised so as to deprive the defendant or his attorney of a reasonable opportunity to prepare.‘” (People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 934–935.) Here, defendant‘s counsel had less than a week after she was appointed to familiarize herself with the case, prepare the sentencing brief, and marshal facts for and prepare a motion for discovery under the CRJA. While Guraiib was able to make general arguments under thе CRJA and provide statistical information in the sentencing brief, that information was dated and based mostly on national surveys; it did not address racially disparate treatment as to convictions and/or sentences in the county where defendant was convicted and sentenced. (See
such county-level information was likely to have been readily available to counsel in the short time frame between her appointment and the sentencing hearing.
Furthermore, although the plausible justification standard is “minimal,” it must still be “based on specific facts.” (Young, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 159.) Thus, preparing a discovery motion under the CRJA necessarily entаils a fairly thorough review of the trial record for any remarks or conduct by the trial judge, attorneys, experts, jurors, and law enforcement officers that may plausibly support the conclusion that a CRJA violation “‘could or might have occurred’ in [the] case.” (Young, at pp. 158–159.) For these reasons, we conclude defendant should have been given a reasonable opportunity to review the trial record and gather relevant information to prepare a motion for discovery under the CRJA. The error was not harmless under any standard because, as indicated, nothing in the record indicates either way whether defendant‘s counsel could have discovered facts plausibly supporting a motion for CRJA discovery had she been given a reasonable opportunity to do so.
The People contend the trial court reasonably denied the continuance request because defense counsel was ready to proceed on the issues properly
rights and procedures available at his original sentencing’ [citations], including consideration of any pertinent circumstances which have arisen since the prior sentence was imposed.” (Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 460.) Here, the CRJA‘s January 1, 2021, effective date was a pertinent circumstance that arose after the remittitur and before the resentencing hearing. The trial court was not barred from considering it.
The People next argue that denial of the continuance motion was not an abuse of discretion because the CRJA does not retroactively apply to defendant. Notably, the CRJA expressly states it applies prospectively only to judgments not entered before January 1, 2021 (
In criminal cases, however, “judgment is synonymous with the imposition of sentence.” (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 2.) Here, in July 2020, the judgment was partially reversed and remanded, and defendant was not resentenced until May 17, 2021. Moreover, the People concede in this appeal that defendant is entitled to resentencing yet again under Senate Bill 567, and thus, a judgment has yet to be entеred. Because judgment was not entered at the time the CRJA became effective on January 1, 2021, defendant is not barred from seeking relief under the new law.4
For these reasons, we will reverse the trial court‘s denial of defendant‘s request for a continuance and remand with directions to grant a reasonable continuance for defendant to prepare a motion for discovery under the CRJA.
The judgment is reversed and remanded for resentencing under
FUJISAKI, ACTING P.J.
WE CONCUR:
PETROU, J.
RODRÍGUEZ, J.
People v. Garcia (A163046)
Trial Court: San Mateo County Superior Court
Trial Judge: Hon. Elizabeth K. Lee
Counsel: Law Offices of John F. Schuck, John F. Schuck, under appointment by the First District Apрellate Project, for Defendant and Appellant
Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, Lance E. Winter, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, René A. Chacón, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David M. Baskind, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent