Court Opinion

ID: 9366487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 19:02:37.961665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:52.664286
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/26/23 P. v. Jimenez 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097134

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE-
                                                                                       1985-0000130)
           v.
                                                                                    ORDER GRANTING
 RONALD JIMENEZ,                                                                 MOTION FOR CALENDAR
                                                                                 PREFERENCE, REMAND
                    Defendant and Appellant.                                      TO THE TRIAL COURT,
                                                                                   AND IMMEDIATELY
                                                                                 ISSUE THE REMITTITUR

THE COURT:

         The parties’ motion to: (1) grant calendar preference and expedite review;
(2) remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration under current law; and (3)
immediately issue the remittitur is granted.
         Assembly Bill No. 960 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which added Penal Code section
1172.2 to reorganize and amend the procedures as to compassionate release requests from

                                                             1
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, became effective on January 1, 2023.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 744, § 3; undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Such
requests apply to, among others, defendants who have “serious and advanced illness with
an end-of-life trajectory.” (§ 1172.2, subd. (b)(1).) Among other things, section 1172.2,
subdivision (b) creates a “presumption favoring recall and resentencing . . . which may
only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety.” The parties agree that defendant Ronald Jimenez has a serious illness
with an end-of-life trajectory. Based on the changes made by the legislation, and in the
interests of judicial economy, the parties request a stipulated remand of the case so the
trial court may reconsider its decision given the new statutory framework.
       This court may reverse or modify a judgment pursuant to stipulation in accordance
with the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision
(a)(8). That section requires us to make specific findings that: (1) there is no reasonable
possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the
reversal; and (2) the grounds for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust
that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of
stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. (Ibid.) Our authority
to reverse or modify a judgment pursuant to stipulation is similarly limited in civil and
criminal cases. (People v. Browning (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 320, 323, citing Landberg v.
Landberg (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 742, 746.)
       We find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision
(a)(8) are satisfied here. The parties’ stipulation supports the conclusion that there is no
reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely
affected by the modification of the judgment because the modification is based on a new
change in the law that alters the standard that the trial court must apply to the
compassionate release request, and any evaluation of the trial court’s order or further
requests by CDCR would need to be evaluated under those new procedures, in any case.

                                              2
(See § 1172.2.) Further, the grounds for requesting the modification of judgment
outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment
or the risk that a stipulated modification of the judgment in this case will reduce the
incentive for pretrial settlement in future cases of this nature. The changes in the required
procedures were substantial; the time frame before the matter becomes moot is short; and
modifying the judgment will result in a just and speedy determination of the cause
pending before this court. We express no opinion as to the ultimate resolution of the
matter.
       Pursuant to Penal Code section 1260, good cause being shown by stipulation of
the parties, the trial court’s order is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court
for reconsideration under section 1172.2. The clerk of this court is directed to
immediately issue the remittitur upon filing of the opinion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.272(c)(1).)

BY THE COURT:

HULL, Acting P. J.

RENNER, J.

KRAUSE, J.

                                               3