Court Opinion

ID: 9390461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 17:02:58.180009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.025591
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/27/23 In re Sahibi CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                       FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 In Re                                                                                       F083352

          OUSSAMA SAHIBI,                                                   (Kern Sup. Ct. No. DF011676A)

                    On Habeas Corpus.                                                      OPINION

         ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus.
         Sara E. Coppin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri, and
Clifford E. Zall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-
                                     INTRODUCTION
       Petitioner Oussama Sahibi was serving a life term when he pleaded no contest in
2015 to committing assaults while in custody and was sentenced to a consecutive
determinate term of 35 years in prison.
       In 2020, the superior court recalled petitioner’s sentence because it was advised by
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) about a specific
sentencing error. The superior court corrected that error and filed an amended abstract of
judgment. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court and
requested a hearing to consider other sentencing issues, particularly the amendments
enacted by Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1393); the petition
was denied.
       Petitioner then filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court
and argued that when the superior court recalled his sentence, it also had jurisdiction to
consider whether to dismiss the five-year term imposed for the prior serious felony
conviction enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)),1 pursuant to the statutory
amendments enacted by Senate Bill 1393. This court issued an order to show cause
(OSC), and the parties agree that remand is appropriate based on People v. Padilla (2022)
13 Cal.5th 152 (Padilla). We thus remand the matter for another resentencing hearing.
                           PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
       In 2002, petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of
second degree murder and attempted murder with firearm enhancements. He was
sentenced to 65 years to life in state prison.

       1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
       2 We take judicial notice of the petition and supporting exhibits filed in
petitioner’s prior filing with this court, In re Sahibi (July 15, 2021) F082375. (Evid.
Code, § 459, subds. (a), (c); § 452, subd. (d)(1).)

                                                 2.
Case No. DF011676A
       On July 10, 2015, petitioner pleaded no contest in Superior Court of Kern County
case No. DF011676A, to committing the following offenses in 2013 while serving his life
term: count 1, assault with a deadly weapon or instrument, other than a firearm, or by
any means likely to produce great bodily injury, upon a peace officer or firefighter
(§ 245, subd. (c)), with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and a great
bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); and count 7, assault by any means of
force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) with a gang enhancement
(§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)). Petitioner also admitted a prior serious felony conviction
enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)).
       On the same day, petitioner was sentenced to a second strike determinate term of
35 years in prison as follows: as to count 1, the upper term of 10 years, with consecutive
terms of 10 years for the attached gang enhancement and three years for the great bodily
injury enhancement; and as to count 7, a consecutive term of two years (one-third the
midterm), plus five years for the attached gang enhancement; and a consecutive term of
five years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement.
       Petitioner did not file a direct appeal in case No. DF011676A, and the judgment
became final in 2015.
Notice to Recall Sentence in Case No. DF011676A
       On or about May 11, 2020, the CDCR notified the Superior Court of Kern County
by letter that petitioner’s sentence in case No. DF011676A had to be recalled because of
an error.
       CDCR’s letter stated that as to count 7, the court correctly imposed a consecutive
sentence for the substantive charge of two years, representing one-third the midterm.
However, the court erroneously imposed a fully consecutive term of five years for the
gang enhancement attached to that count.

                                            3.
              “Pursuant to [section] 1170.1(a), the subordinate term for each
       consecutive offense shall consist of one-third of the middle term of …
       imprisonment prescribed for each other felony conviction…, and shall
       include one-third of the term imposed for any specific enhancements
       applicable to those subordinate offenses. Therefore, one-third of 5 years is
       1 year eight months.

               “Please review your file to determine if a correction is required.
       When noticed by [CDCR] that an illegal sentence exists, the trial court is
       entitled to reconsider all sentencing choices, People v. Hill [(1986)]
       185 Cal.App.3d 831….”3 (Italics added.)
Recall and Resentencing
       On October 21, 2020, an amended abstract of judgment was filed in case
No. DF011676A, that showed Judge Humphrey resentenced petitioner to an aggregate
term of 31 years 8 months, consistent with CDCR’s letter, as follows: as to count 1, the
upper term of 10 years, with consecutive terms of 10 years for the attached gang
enhancement and three years for the great bodily injury enhancement; and as to count 7, a
consecutive term of two years (one-third the midterm), plus one year eight months (one-
third the midterm) for the attached gang enhancement (instead of the full term of five
years); and a consecutive term of five years for the prior serious felony conviction
enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)).
       The court corrected petitioner’s sentence without convening a hearing.
       PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION FILED IN SUPERIOR COURT
       On January 5, 2021, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
superior court, and argued he should be allowed to withdraw his plea in case
No. DF011676A based on ineffective assistance because his plea was allegedly coerced

       3 At the time CDCR sent its recall letter to the trial court, the provisions for recall
and resentencing were stated in former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). While
petitioner’s writ was pending, the Legislature amended these provisions and moved them
to new section 1170.03, effective January 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021, ch. 719, §§ 1–7.)
Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.03 to
section 1172.1. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 9.)

                                              4.
and he was factually innocent; he was illegally sentenced in all his cases; and the court
should have reduced his sentence pursuant to Senate Bill 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.)
when it recalled his sentence.
The Superior Court’s Denial of the Petition
       On March 4, 2021, Judge Zulfa filed an order that denied petitioner’s writ petition
because he failed to provide any specific information to support his ineffective assistance
claim, “except his opinion that entering into the plea was a bad idea,” and failed to
establish good cause to withdraw his plea.
       The court found petitioner’s sentence in case No. DF011676A was corrected
consistent with CDCR’s letter. Finally, the court held petitioner’s sentence in case
No. DF011676A was final, and he was not entitled to the retroactive application of the
sentencing amendments enacted by Senate Bill 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.).
      PETITIONER’S FIRST HABEAS PETITION FILED IN THIS COURT
       On May 5, 2021, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this
court (In re Sahibi, supra, F082735) and asserted the superior court should have reduced
his sentence pursuant to Senate Bill 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) when it recalled the
sentence in case No. DF011676A.
       On July 15, 2021, this court denied the petition; petitioner’s claim regarding the
retroactivity of Senate Bill 1393 to his recalled sentence was denied without prejudice.
                  PETITIONER’S CURRENT HABEAS PETITION
       On September 27, 2021, petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas
corpus with this court, challenged Judge Zulfa’s denial of his previous petition, and
asserted that when the superior court recalled and resentenced him in case
No. DF011676A, it should have considered striking other parts of his sentence pursuant
to Senate Bill 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.).

                                             5.
Issuance of OSC and Further Briefing
       Upon this court’s order, the People filed an informal response and argued
petitioner was not entitled to retroactive application of the amendments enacted by Senate
Bill 1393 because the judgment in case No. DF011676A was final in 2015, prior to the
effective date of the legislation. In doing so, however, the People acknowledged the
appellate courts disagreed on the retroactivity issue and the question was pending before
the California Supreme Court.
       On April 14, 2022, this court issued an OSC. This court appointed counsel for
petitioner, and the return and reply were filed.
                                      DISCUSSION
Senate Bill 1393
       When petitioner was sentenced in case No. DF011676A in 2015, the court was
required to impose a five-year enhancement for each prior serious felony conviction
pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a), and did not have any discretion to dismiss that
enhancement in furtherance of justice under section 1385. (People v. Shaw (2020)
56 Cal.App.5th 582, 585.)
       “The situation changed on January 1, 2019, when Senate Bill 1393 took effect.
[Citation.] This legislation amended section 1385, subdivision (b)(1) to give courts
power to strike the five-year prior serious felony enhancement ‘in the furtherance of
justice.’ [Citation.] It likewise amended section 667, subdivision (a)(1) to strike the
cross-reference to section 1385, subdivision (b),” that previously prohibited dismissal of
the enhancement. (People v. Shaw, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 585.)
       A court’s decision to deny a motion to strike a five-year prior serious felony
enhancement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and “[n]o error occurs if the trial
court evaluates all relevant circumstances to ensure that the punishment fits the offense
and the offender.” (People v. Shaw, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 587.)

                                             6.
Retroactivity
       “… Senate Bill 1393 applies retroactively to all cases or judgments of conviction
in which a five-year term was imposed at sentencing, based on a prior serious felony
conviction, provided the judgment of conviction is not final when Senate Bill 1393
[became] effective on January 1, 2019.” (People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961,
971–972, 973.)
       In 2021, when petitioner filed his writ petitions in the superior court and this court,
there was a disagreement among appellate courts as to whether subsequently enacted
sentencing legislation was retroactive pursuant to In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740,
when a court recalled a sentence, even though the judgment was otherwise final. (See,
e.g., People v. Federico (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 318, review granted Aug. 26, 2020,
S263082, ordered transferred to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division
Two, with directions to vacate its decision to reconsider the cause in light of Assem. Bill
No. 1540 (Stats. 2021, ch. 719) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d)) [newly-enacted
resentencing provisions are not retroactive under Estrada when the judgment was
otherwise final even when sentence recalled]; People v. Padilla (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th
244, review granted Aug. 26, 2020, S263375, affirmed by Padilla, supra, 13 Cal.5th 152
[judgment no longer final when court recalls and vacates a defendant’s sentence,
subsequently-enacted resentencing provisions are retroactive, and the court may consider
other resentencing issues hearing on recall].)
Padilla
       The California Supreme Court resolved this disagreement in Padilla, supra,
13 Cal.5th 152, where it held that even though the judgment in that case had become
final, Proposition 57 applied retroactively at a resentencing hearing because the
defendant’s sentence had been vacated in a habeas proceeding. (Id. at pp. 158, 163.)
“When [appellant’s] sentence was vacated, the trial court regained the jurisdiction and
duty to consider what punishment was appropriate for him, and [appellant] regained the

                                             7.
right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed.” (Id. at pp. 161–162.) The
judgment in his case “thus became nonfinal,” and there was “no ‘constitutional obstacle’
to applying the Estrada presumption to his case.” (Id. at p. 162.) “[O]nce a court has
determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original
sentence, whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence.” (Id. at
p. 163.)
The Parties’ Supplemental Briefing
       This court requested petitioner and the People file a supplemental return and reply
and address the impact of Padilla on petitioner’s claim regarding Senate Bill 1393.
       The parties agreed Padilla clarified that a court has jurisdiction to consider other
sentencing issues when a sentence is recalled, and the instant matter should be remanded
for another sentencing hearing.
Analysis
       As in Padilla, the judgment in petitioner’s case No. DF011676A was vacated and
no longer final when the superior court recalled his sentence in response to CDCR’s
notice about the erroneous imposition of the fully consecutive gang enhancement.
(Padilla, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 162–163; People v. Salgado (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th
376, 380.) As a result, the amendments enacted by Senate Bill 1393 were retroactive to
petitioner’s case, and the court had jurisdiction to consider whether to dismiss the five-
year term imposed for the section 667, subdivision (a) prior serious felony enhancement.
The matter must thus be remanded. In remanding the matter, we express no opinion
whether the court should exercise its discretion.
                                      DISPOSITION
       Let a writ of habeas corpus issue directing the Superior County of Kern County
vacate petitioner’s sentence only in case No. DF011676A, appoint counsel, and conduct a
new sentencing hearing to determine whether to dismiss the five-year term imposed for
the section 667, subdivision (a) prior serious felony enhancement.

                                              8.
       After resentencing, the superior court clerk is directed to prepare an amended
abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to CDCR and all other appropriate
parties.

                                                              POOCHIGIAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

DETJEN, J.

PEÑA, J.

                                            9.