Court Opinion

ID: 9900927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 19:03:35.336201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:22.658409
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/20/23 P. v. Silva 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F084982
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. F16901495)
                    v.

 PATRICK JOHN SILVA,                                                                      OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G.
Idiart, Judge.

         Erin J. Radekin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General,
Louis M. Vasquez and Jesica Y. Gonzalez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

         *Before Peña, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
                                    INTRODUCTION
       In 2016, defendant Patrick John Silva pled guilty to two counts of second degree
robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; counts 1 & 7) and admitted section 12022, subdivision (b)(1)
enhancement allegations as to those counts. (Undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.) He also admitted he suffered a prior strike conviction that also qualified as
a serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The court sentenced defendant to
an aggregate term of 14 years, which included a five-year sentence for the prior serious
felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
       In August 2022, a letter from the Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was filed with the superior court, providing the
court with jurisdiction to consider striking the section 667, subdivision (a)(1)
enhancement and recommending recall and resentencing in accordance with section
1170.03, subdivision (a)(1), now section 1172.1. The court issued a minute order stating
it had read and considered the request, and the request was denied. It also sent a letter to
CDCR indicating its reasons for the denial and stated a hearing on the matter was
“unnecessary.”
       In this appeal, the parties agree the trial court erred in concluding defendant was
not eligible for resentencing without following the procedures required under section
1172.1. We agree the court’s order should be reversed and conclude the matter must be
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       In 2016, a complaint was filed against defendant alleging six counts of second
degree robbery (§ 211; counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 & 8) and one count of attempted second degree
robbery (§§ 664, 211; count 5) with allegations that during the commission and attempted
commission of the offenses defendant used a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a
knife, within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). It further alleged
defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 4),

                                             2.
committed assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4);
count 9), and exhibited a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); count 10). Additionally, it
was alleged defendant had three prison priors (§ 667.5, former subd. (b)) and was
previously convicted of a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) that qualified as a strike
offense under section 667, subdivisions (b)–(i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a)–(d).
       Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 1 &
7) and admitted the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement allegations as to those
counts. He also admitted he suffered a prior strike conviction that also qualified as a
serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant entered his plea with the
understanding he would be sentenced to no more than 14 years and his sentence on the
section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement as to count 7 would be stayed.
       The court sentenced defendant to a total aggregate term of 14 years: the midterm
of three years on count 1 (§ 211), doubled to six years, plus an additional term of five
years for the section 667, subdivision (a) enhancement and an additional year for the
section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement, and a consecutive term of one-third the
midterm of three years (one year), doubled to two years on count 7. The court imposed a
one-year term for the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement as to count 7 but
stayed it. The remaining counts were dismissed.
       In a letter dated May 11, 2022 (filed with the superior court Aug. 31, 2022), the
Office of the Secretary of the CDCR provided the superior court with the authority to
resentence defendant pursuant to former section 1170.03, subdivision (a)(1), now section
1172.1, based upon a change in the sentencing law. Specifically, the letter stated,
effective January 1, 2019, the court gained discretion, which it previously lacked, to
strike the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancement or the related punishment pursuant
to section 1385. The letter explained defendant’s “case factors have been compiled and
thoroughly reviewed by the Director of Adult Institutions,” and the Secretary of CDCR

                                             3.
recommended defendant’s sentence “be recalled and that he be resentenced in accordance
with PC Section 1170.03, Subdivision (a)(1).”
       A September 6, 2022, minute order states the court read and considered the
request from the CDCR and concluded any request for recall and resentencing under
former section 1170.03, subdivision (a)(1) (now section 1172.1) was denied. The court
also sent the Secretary of the CDCR a letter dated September 6, 2022, in which it stated it
denied the request. In the letter, the court stated it believed that “‘in the interest of
justice’ the sentence of Judge Peterson (now retired) should not be modified or changed.”
The court noted it had reviewed the probation report, change of plea form, transcript of
the actual sentencing hearing, and transcript of the change of plea in rendering its
decision. It detailed the sentence imposed and again stated, “That sentence should not
change, recognizing the 5 year prior and the ‘strike’ are the same prior conviction. This
court recognizes it has discretion to dismiss the 5 year prior enhancement, but elects not
to do so.” It noted, “defendant robbed or attempted to rob multiple victims at four
different massage parlors on four different dates, threatening multiple victims with a
knife and injuring more than one victim.” The court concluded: “Fourteen years as a
total sentence is fair and this court deems it appropriate. The maximum for what the
defendant pled to, not counting the numerous dismissed felonies, was 19 years. [¶] A
hearing is unnecessary and will not be granted.”
                                        DISCUSSION
I.     Recall and Resentencing Proceedings Under Section 1172.1
       Section 1172.1 (former § 1170.03) provides a procedure by which a court may “at
any time upon the recommendation of the secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings in
the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison, … recall the sentence and
commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if
they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody,

                                               4.
and provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.” (§ 1172.1,
subd. (a).) “The CDCR recommendation furnishes the court with jurisdiction it would
not otherwise have to recall and resentence and is ‘an invitation to the court to exercise its
equitable jurisdiction.’” (People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040.)
       Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) moved the recall and
resentencing provisions of former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) to section 1170.03,
effective January 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021, ch. 719, §§ 1–7.) It also clarified many of the
required procedures under this section. (See People v. McMurray, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th
at p. 1041 [“[T]he Legislature repeatedly indicated that Assembly Bill 1540 was intended
to ‘make clarifying changes’ to former section 1170(d)(1), including specifying the
required procedure and guidelines when the CDCR recommends recall and
resentencing”].) These changes took effect before CDCR’s letter was sent in this case,
and the trial court considered the recommendation. Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021–2022
Reg. Sess.) renumbered section 1170.03 to section 1172.1, effective June 30, 2022, but
made no substantive changes. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 9.)
       As a result of these changes, section 1172.1 provides “[w]here, as here, the CDCR
recommends recall and resentencing, the court is also now required to hold a hearing
(unless the parties otherwise stipulate), state on the record its reasons for its decision,
provide notice to the defendant, and appoint counsel for the defendant.” (People v.
McMurray, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 1040; accord, § 1172.1, subds. (a)(6)–(8), (b)(1).)
The statute further provides that resentencing may be granted without a hearing upon
stipulation by the parties. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(7).) Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(8)
expressly states: “Resentencing shall not be denied, nor a stipulation rejected, without a
hearing where the parties have an opportunity to address the basis for the intended denial
or rejection.” Additionally, when recalling and resentencing pursuant to its provisions,
the court “shall … apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial
discretion.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(2); see People v. McMurray, supra, at p. 1040; People v.

                                               5.
Pierce (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1078.) And, where a resentencing request is made,
there is now a presumption in favor of recall and resentencing of the defendant, “‘which
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. (People v. McMurray,
at p. 1040; accord, § 1172.1, subd. (b)(2).)
II.    Analysis
       Defendant argues, and the People agree, the trial court did not follow the
procedural requirements set forth in section 1172.1, in part, by failing to appoint
defendant counsel and failing to hold a hearing at which the parties had an opportunity to
be heard. Defendant also contends the court’s failure to appoint him counsel and hold a
hearing violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and to the assistance of
counsel. He argues the matter must be remanded for the trial court to comply with
section 1172.1’s procedures.
       We agree with the parties the court erred in failing to provide defendant with
notice and set a status conference, to appoint him counsel, and to hold a hearing at which
the parties would have had the opportunity to address the basis for the intended denial or
rejection. (See § 1172.1, subds. (a)(6)–(8), (b).) Accordingly, its order must be reversed
and the matter remanded for the court to comply with the procedural requirements of
section 1172.1. (See People v. Pierce, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 1079 [“‘Under the
circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand the matter, so that the
trial court can consider the CDCR’s recommendation to recall and resentence defendant
under the … procedure and guidelines of section 117[2.1]’”]; accord, People v.
McMurray, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 1041 [same].) Because we are reversing the
court’s order and remanding on other grounds, we need not reach defendant’s
constitutional arguments.

                                               6.
                                    DISPOSITION
      The court’s order declining to recall and resentence defendant is reversed and the
matter is remanded with directions to comply with the procedural requirements of section
1172.1.

                                           7.