Court Opinion

ID: 9385656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 18:03:07.824396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:03.621714
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/7/23 P. v. Butler CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096209

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 14F06353)

           v.

 JEROME BERNARD BUTLER,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         We affirmed defendant Jerome Bernard Butler’s convictions in July 2019, but
remanded the matter for the trial court to consider exercising its new discretion to strike
enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2017, ch. 682)
(Senate Bill No. 620) and Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018, Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018,
ch. 1013) (Senate Bill No. 1393). On remand, the trial court declined to strike the
enhancements, leaving intact the sentence of 95 years to life plus 10 years.

                                                             1
       On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion because the
lengthy sentence does not serve the interests of justice and the trial court failed to
consider the circumstances surrounding his offense and his rehabilitative efforts.
       We conclude the trial court was unaware of its discretion under amended Penal
Code section 13851 when it declined to strike the enhancements. Because the record
does not clearly indicate that the trial court would have refused to exercise its discretion
had it considered the mitigating circumstances in amended section 1385, we remand for
resentencing.
                                      BACKGROUND
Original Proceedings
       The facts underlying defendant’s offenses are taken from our unpublished opinion
in defendant’s previous appeal, People v. Butler (July 30, 2019, C082455) [nonpub. opn.]
(Butler). We construed defendant’s request for judicial notice as a motion to incorporate
by reference the record on appeal in Butler and granted that motion.
       Defendant shot the victim twice after the victim got into a fight with defendant’s
girlfriend and stepson. The victim died from the injuries. At trial, defendant testified the
victim had a reputation of violence in his community, and he shot the victim out of fear.
(Butler, supra, C082455.)
       The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and
found true the allegations that he had personally used and discharged a firearm causing
death. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d).) It also found defendant guilty of possession of a
firearm as a convicted felon. (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant admitted prior serious
and violent felony convictions, including a robbery conviction in 1996 and a conviction
in 1997 for discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling. (Butler, supra, C082455.)

1      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                              2
       The trial court imposed an aggregate indeterminate term of 95 years to life along
with a determinate term of 10 years. As relevant here, the sentence included a 25-year-
to-life term for the firearm enhancement, and two five-year terms for defendant’s prior
serious and violent felony convictions. (Butler, supra, C082455.)
       Defendant appealed the judgment. We remanded for the trial court to consider
exercising its new discretion under Senate Bill No. 620 and Senate Bill No. 1393 but
otherwise affirmed. (Butler, supra, C082455.)
Proceedings on Remand
       On remand, defendant argued in his motion to dismiss enhancements that the trial
court should exercise its discretion to strike the enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620
and Senate Bill No. 1393. The People also acknowledged that the trial court had the
authority to strike the firearm enhancements and the prior convictions in the interest of
justice under section 1385.
       At the remand hearing in March 2022, the trial court declined to strike the firearm
enhancement or the prior serious felony conviction enhancements. The trial court noted
defendant took a life in the instant offense, and his prior convictions also involved “quite
a bit of violence.” It further commented several times on the complete lack of mitigating
circumstances in the current offense or new information about defendant’s rehabilitative
efforts. Thus, although it was “fairly lenient” with cases remanded under recently
changed sentencing laws, the trial court declined to exercise its discretion here.
       Defendant timely appealed. We requested and received supplemental briefing
from the parties regarding the application of Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
(Stats. 2021, ch. 721) (Senate Bill No. 81) in this case. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)

                                              3
                                       DISCUSSION
                                              I
                                     Legal Background
        Senate Bill No. 620 amended section 12022.53, allowing the trial court to, “in the
interest of justice pursuant to Section 1385 and at the time of sentencing, strike or
dismiss” a firearm enhancement. (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2, subd. (h).) This authority
“applies to any resentencing that may occur pursuant to any other law.” (Ibid.) The
Legislature subsequently adopted Senate Bill No. 1393, which amended sections 667 and
1385, giving trial courts the discretion to strike or dismiss a prior serious felony
conviction.2 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, §§ 1-2; People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961,
971.)
        Section 1385 underwent subsequent amendments. (Senate Bill No. 81; Stats.
2021, ch. 721, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) It now requires a trial court to dismiss an
enhancement if it is in furtherance of justice to do so, affording “great weight to evidence
offered by the defendant to prove” that specified mitigating circumstances are present,
unless the court finds that dismissal would endanger public safety. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1),
(2).) These mitigating circumstances include, as relevant here, that multiple
enhancements are alleged in a single case, and that the enhancement is based on a prior
conviction that is over five years old. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(B), (H).) These changes
apply to sentencings occurring after January 1, 2022. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(7).)

2      The Legislature made subsequent amendments to the two statutes without
substantive change. (Stats. 2021, ch. 626, §§ 27, 63; Stats. 2019, ch. 497, § 195; Stats.
2018, ch. 423, § 114.)

                                              4
                                              II
                             Application of Senate Bill No. 81
       We remanded this case for the trial court to “consider exercising its authority
under SB [Senate Bill No.] 620 and SB [Senate Bill No.] 1393” but affirmed the
judgment “in all other respects.” (Butler, supra, C082455.) The People argue this
direction limited the trial court’s jurisdiction on remand to exercise the discretion under
Senate Bill No. 620 and Senate Bill No. 1393, thus excluding the application of Senate
Bill No. 81. We disagree.
       When an appellate court remands a matter with directions governing the
proceedings on remand, the trial court is bound by those directions, and any material
variance from those directions is unauthorized and void. (People v. Ramirez (2019)
35 Cal.App.5th 55, 64.) However, “[i]f a remittitur is ambiguous the trial court can
interpret it in light of the law and the appellate opinion to determine its duties.” (People
v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1368.) The meaning given to an ambiguous
remittitur must be harmonized with the appellate court’s ruling. (Combs v. Haddock
(1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 627, 631.) “Whether the trial court correctly interpreted our
opinion is an issue of law subject to de novo review.” (Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 851, 859.)
       Here, our remittitur directed the trial court to consider exercising its discretion
under Senate Bill No. 620 and Senate Bill No. 1393. (Butler, supra, C082455.) Senate
Bill No. 620, effective January 1, 2018, authorized the trial court to dismiss or strike a
firearm enhancement pursuant to section 1385. (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2.) One year
later, effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1393 amended section 1385 to give trial
courts the discretion to strike a prior serious felony conviction enhancement. (Stats.
2018, ch. 1013, § 2.) The remittitur did not have the benefit of Senate Bill No. 81, which
came into effect more than two years later (Stats. 2021, ch. 721 [filed Oct. 8, 2021, eff.
Jan. 1, 2022]; Butler, C082455 [filed July 30, 2019]), and thus did not address whether

                                              5
the trial court must apply a version of section 1385 on remand that is “frozen in time” in
2019. Such ambiguity may be resolved by consulting with the law and by giving the
remittitur a meaning that is harmonized with our prior opinion.
        The Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 81 “to provide guidance to courts by
specifying circumstances for a court to consider when determining whether to apply an
enhancement.” (Sen. Com. on Pub. Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 81, (2021-2022
Reg. Sess.) Feb. 8, 2021, p. 1.) In adopting Senate Bill No. 81, the Legislature noted that
while over 150 sentence enhancements may be added to a criminal charge, judges had no
guidance on how to exercise their discretion to dismiss a sentence enhancement. (Sen.
Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading of analysis of Sen. Bill No. 81
(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 30, 2021, p. 2.) Quoting the California
Supreme Court, the Legislature acknowledged existing law on when to impose or dismiss
enhancements was an “amorphous concept.” (Ibid.)
        It is thus clear from the legislative history of Senate Bill No. 81 that the
Legislature intended for it to provide the much needed guidance to trial courts on how to
exercise their discretion to strike or dismiss an enhancement, including the firearm and
prior serious felony conviction enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620 and Senate Bill
No. 1393. Nothing in our opinion suggested we would direct the trial court to disregard
guidance from the Legislature.
        Because we conclude our remittitur incorporated Senate Bill No. 81, we need not
decide whether the March 2022 hearing was a “sentencing” under the amended section
1385.
                                              III
                                      Abuse of Discretion
        We review a trial court’s decision not to strike prior serious felony enhancements
or firearm enhancements for abuse of discretion. (People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th
582, 586; People v. Pearson (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 112, 116.) “An abuse of discretion

                                               6
occurs when the trial court . . . is unaware of its discretion.” (In re White (2020)
9 Cal.5th 455, 470.) “When a court is unaware of its discretion, the remedy is to remand
for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached
the same conclusion if it had been aware of its discretion.” (People v. Barber (2020)
55 Cal.App.5th 787, 814.)
       Here, the trial court stated multiple times during the hearing that it found no
mitigating factors to support striking the enhancements. In one instance, after reviewing
defendant’s two prior felony convictions, both over 20 years old, the trial court concluded
there was “no mitigation at all.” But under amended section 1385, these two convictions
would have weighed “greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement.” (§ 1385, subd.
(c)(2)(H).) It is therefore clear from the record that the trial court was unaware of its
discretion under amended section 1385 at the March 2022 hearing. We accept the
People’s concession that the record does not clearly indicate the trial court would have
refused to exercise its discretion to strike the enhancements had it considered the
mitigating factors in amended section 1385, subdivision (c). Indeed, the trial court was
“fairly lenient” with cases remanded under recently changed sentencing laws, but simply
could not find any mitigating circumstances here to support striking or dismissing the
enhancements. Therefore, we shall remand the matter for resentencing.
       We reject the People’s argument that defendant has forfeited his claim by failing
to request consideration of the mitigating circumstances under amended section 1385.
Defendant’s motion on remand sought relief under Senate Bill No. 620 and Senate Bill
No. 1393 which, as discussed ante, incorporate section 1385 as modified by Senate Bill
No. 81. He thus properly preserved the claim for appeal. In any event, we have the
discretion to review a forfeited claim, especially when “the issue posed is purely a
question of law based on undisputed facts, and involves important questions of public
policy.” (Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Cal.3d 644, 654, fn. 3; see People v.
Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400 [exercising discretion to consider the application

                                              7
of Sen. Bill No. 1393 ]; People v. Watson (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 474, 483 [exercising
discretion to consider the then newly amended section 1170.95]; People v. Yarbrough
(2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303, 310 [exercising discretion to consider a forfeited claim to
“avert any claim of inadequate assistance of counsel” even when such a claim was not
raised by defendant on appeal.)
       We further disagree with the People that because defendant offered no additional
supporting evidence at the hearing, the trial court was not required to consider the
mitigating circumstances under section 1385, subdivision (c)(2). The record clearly
shows that in the original proceedings, the trial court imposed multiple enhancements on
defendant, two of which were based on prior convictions that are over 20 years old.
These are mitigating circumstances under section 1385, subdivisions (c)(2)(B) and (H).
It is unclear what other evidence defendant could have offered to prove them. Even the
People acknowledge “some of the mitigating circumstances may have been apparent to
the trial court.”

                                             8
                                      DISPOSITION
       The case is remanded for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its
informed discretion under section 1385. We express no opinion as to the ultimate
sentence or the existence of other mitigating factors, but note the trial court should
consider any additional, applicable changes to sentencing laws.

                                                      \s\                      ,
                                                  McADAM, J.*

       We concur:

           \s\            ,
       HULL, Acting P. J.

           \s\              ,
       RENNER, J.

*       Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              9