THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK WILLIAM RACKLEY, SR., Defendant and Appellant.
C102944
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
September 2, 2025
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 12F01582). ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on August 28, 2025, be modified as follows:
- On page 5, in the first paragraph, the second to last sentence beginning with “The court” and ending with “originally imposed” is modified to read as follows:
The court “reimpose[d] all fines and fees” that were originally imposed and, at defendant‘s request, stayed all fines and fees.
On page 7, the last sentence of the Disposition, beginning with “The trial court” and ending with “Corrections and Rehabilitation” is modified to read: The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment in accordance with this opinion, including listing the correct amount for the serious habitual offender program fine and noting that all fines and fees are stayed, and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
There is no change in the judgment.
Defendant‘s petition for rehearing is denied.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
ROBIE, J.
/s/
EARL, P. J.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
August 28, 2025
Defendant Frank William Rackley, Sr., appeals from a resentencing order made under
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2011, defendant used his hand to penetrate C.M.‘s vagina and anus, and then raped her. The following month, defendant raped J.D. Both victims were sex workers at the time of the assaults.
In 2012, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of forcible rape and two counts of forcible sexual penetration. As to each count, the jury also found true that defendant committed an offense specified in
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 21 years, plus 120 years to life consecutive, including one year for the prior prison term enhancement. The court awarded 445 days custody credit (387 actual days, plus 58 conduct days). The court also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine; a corresponding $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended unless parole is revoked); a $160 “court security surcharge fee” (
On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment and ordered the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. (People v. Rackley (Nov. 18, 2016, C072249) [nonpub. opn.].)
Defendant filed a brief asking the trial court to dismiss the prior prison term enhancement, his prior strike, and the four prior serious felony enhancements. Defendant also asked that the sentences for the penetration counts run concurrent to the sentences for the rape counts, instead of running consecutive. Defendant argued he had a loving family, including adult children, and he attached supportive letters from them. The family members said defendant had been a good father until he started using methamphetamines in 2008. Defendant also provided other supportive letters, including ones that offered him a job upon release from prison.
Defendant further argued he had engaged in vocational training and education, and rehabilitative programs, including substance abuse treatment, “Breaking the Cycle,” and stress resilience. He was also 49 years old and therefore posed less of a risk of future crime or violence. In addition, he had been in custody continuously since 2011 (or 13 years), and it was no longer in the interest of justice to incarcerate him.
Defendant also argued the enhancements and the prior strike should be dismissed under Romero2 and
The prosecution filed a reply, arguing the trial court should strike the prior prison term enhancement but deny the other requested sentence modifications. According to the
During the December 2024 resentencing hearing, defendant acknowledged he had some violent incidents while incarcerated but argued prison is “a violent place,” and he had not had any incidents in the last year. He also noted he had taken advantage of “numerous” rehabilitative programs, indicating he was “changing course.” As to whether he posed a danger to public safety, defendant argued the test was whether he would pose a danger on release from prison, and he had a long sentence and would not be released without a parole board evaluation.
Turning to defendant‘s Romero motion, the trial court declined to strike defendant‘s prior strike because defendant did not fall outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law. Defendant‘s crimes were “violent, cruel, and vicious,” and he had a “fairly continuous” criminal history. There were also numerous aggravating factors: The crime involved great violence (
Turning to defendant‘s prior serious felony enhancements, the trial court noted defendant had a “loving family” and he had done well in prison from 2011 to 2019. But, he had recent write ups, including drug use and battery on other inmates. The court imposed one of the prior serious felony enhancements and struck the remaining three.
Defendant appeals.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Our review of the record revealed several issues with the fines and fees imposed. During the resentencing, the trial court reimposed all the prior fees and fines, including a $340.01 main jail booking fee and $62.09 main jail classification fee, purportedly under
In addition, the trial court never orally specified the statutory basis for the $130 penalty assessments that were imposed on the
Finally, we note that, although the trial court originally imposed a $300 serious habitual offender program fine (
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The $340.01 main jail booking fee, $62.09 main jail classification fee, and $130 penalty assessment are vacated. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment in accordance with this opinion, including listing the correct amount for the serious habitual offender program fine, and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/s/
ROBIE, J.
We concur:
/s/
EARL, P. J.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.