Court Opinion

ID: 9390048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 19:02:56.464321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.261922
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. Hicks CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                  B320008

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. BA370760)
         v.

KEVIN HICKS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Robert Perry, Judge. Reversed and
remanded with directions.

     Richard B. Lennon and Nancy Gaynor, Staff Attorney,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Stefanie Yee, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                ______________________________
       Appellant and defendant Kevin Hicks appeals from the
trial court’s order declining to follow the recommendation of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
to recall defendant’s sentence and resentence him under Penal
Code section 1172.11 (former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)).2
       Defendant argues that recent changes to section 1172.1
entitle him to a remand so that he can receive the benefit of a
new statutory presumption in favor of resentencing, which he did
not receive; the People agree and joins defendant’s request for
remand. We concur with both parties and remand to the trial
court for further proceedings in accordance with section 1172.1.
         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In 2014, a jury convicted defendant of conspiracy to commit
the crimes of robbery and kidnapping for robbery. (§§ 182, subd.
(a)(1), 209, subd. (a), 211.) The jury also found true the special
allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm. (§ 12022,
subd. (a)(1).)
       At sentencing, the trial court found true the special
allegation that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction.
(§ 667, subd. (a).) It then sentenced defendant to life in prison,

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.

2     When the trial court issued the summary denial, the
relevant recall and resentencing petition was numbered section
1170, subdivision (d)(1). While amending that provision in 2021,
the Legislature renumbered it to section 1170.03. (Stats. 2021,
ch. 719, § 3.1.) Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.03 was
renumbered to section 1172.1, with no change in text. (Stats.
2022, ch. 58, § 9.)

                                2
plus one year for the firearm allegation and five years for the
prior serious felony, with parole eligibility after 14 years.
       In 2015, we affirmed appellant’s conviction, but struck the
sentence enhancement based on the firearm allegation. (People v.
Rose (Dec. 1, 2015, B254912) [nonpub. opn.].)
       In March 2020, the CDCR sent a letter to the trial court
recommending that defendant’s sentence be recalled and that he
be resentenced. (Former § 1170, subd. (d).) It does not appear
that defendant was notified of this recommendation. Six months
later, the trial court declined to follow the CDCR’s
recommendation, finding that defendant “is a dedicated and
repeat offender who poses a clear danger to society and is
undeserving of any reduction in his sentence.”
       Defendant subsequently appealed.3
                            DISCUSSION
I.     Section 1172.1
       When the CDCR recommended that defendant be
resentenced, former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) authorized
the trial court to recall a defendant’s sentence at any time
following the CDCR’s recommendation. The trial court could
then “resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they
had not previously been sentenced, provided the new sentence, if
any, is no greater than the initial sentence.” (Former § 1170,
subd. (d)(1).) “[T]he resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify
every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to
the recall.” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893.)

3       On June 2, 2022, we granted defendant relief from default
for failing to file a timely notice of appeal and gave him 30 days
to file a notice of appeal. He filed a notice of appeal 12 days later.

                                  3
        Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) retained this
basic structure but added several new provisions. Prominently,
section 1172.1 now entitles defendants to a presumption in favor
of recall and resentencing upon receipt of a CDCR
recommendation. The presumption “may only be overcome if a
court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety as defined in subdivision (c) of section 1170.18.”4
(§ 1172.1, subd. (b)(2); see § 1170.18, subd. (c) [defining the
required risk threshold as “an unreasonable risk that the
petitioner will commit a new violent felony”].)
        At resentencing, the court must now “apply any changes in
law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion.”
(§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(2).) If the prosecution and a defendant agree
to it, the court may “[v]acate the defendant’s conviction and
impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or
lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in
the original pleading, and then resentence the defendant to a
reduced term of imprisonment.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(3)(B).)
        Lastly, Assembly Bill No. 1540 creates a host of new
procedural rights for defendants. Whereas former section 1170,
subdivision (d) “apparently [did] not require the [trial] court to
respond to [a] recommendation” from the CDCR at all (Dix v.
Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 459), it must now “provide
notice to the defendant and set a status conference within 30
days after the date that the court received the [CDCR
recommendation]. The court’s order setting the conference shall
also appoint counsel to represent the defendant.” (§ 1172.1, subd.

4     The trial court’s statement that defendant is “a clear
danger to society” and “undeserving of any reduction in his
sentence” does not necessarily satisfy this exception.

                                4
(b)(1).) Before denying a recommendation for resentencing, the
court must provide “a hearing where the parties have an
opportunity to address the basis for the intended denial or
rejection.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(8).) And when issuing its decision,
the court must “state on the record the reasons for its decision to
grant or deny recall and resentencing.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(6).)
II.    Analysis
       Defendant’s sole argument on appeal (albeit for a variety of
reasons) is that, in light of the recent amendments to section
1172.1, his case should be remanded for reconsideration of the
sentencing recall request of the CDCR. The People agree, as do
we.
       Because the trial court denied defendant’s petition before
these new provisions were enacted, it did not notify defendant of
the CDCR’s recommendation, appoint counsel, apply a
presumption in favor of recall and resentencing, or explain its
reasons for denying recall and resentencing. In other words, the
trial court did not follow the new law. The parties contend that
this was error because the new law applies to defendant’s case for
the reasons explained in People v. McMurray (2022)
76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1039–1040 (McMurray).
       Regardless of whether McMurray was rightly decided, it
would be a waste of judicial resources to deny defendant’s request
to remand for a new hearing. The CDCR has already decided
that defendant is a worthy candidate for recall and resentencing.
If we decided that the new law does not apply retroactively to
defendant’s case, the CDCR could simply file a new
recommendation to recall defendant’s sentence, triggering a new
process to which section 1172.1 would doubtless apply. By
remanding now, we avoid this unnecessary process.

                                 5
      In light of our conclusion, all remaining arguments raised
by defendant are moot.
                          DISPOSITION
      We reverse the August 4, 2020, order denying recall and
remand this case to the trial court with directions to apply the
provisions of section 1172.1.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                                      _____________________, J.
                                      ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

________________________, P. J.
LUI

________________________, J.
CHAVEZ

                                  6