Court Opinion

ID: 9957677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 20:01:58.044197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:33.395557
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/4/24 P. v. Robertson 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097567

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. CM021130)

           v.

 TEOTIS LAMARK ROBERTSON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Teotis Lamark Robertson appeals from his resentencing pursuant to
Penal Code section 1172.75.1 Defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to grant
him a full resentencing. He further contends the court erred in failing to award sufficient
custody credits. We will modify the credits and otherwise affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In June 2007, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery. (§ 211.) He
also admitted a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), a prior strike (§§ 667,
subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a
prior prison term (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). He stipulated to the upper term on the
robbery charge. Additional allegations were stricken. Later that month, the trial court
sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 28 years, including: 10 years
for the robbery count (the upper term of five years doubled due to the strike); 10 years
consecutive for the firearm enhancement; five years consecutive for the prior serious
felony enhancement; two years consecutive for a 2005 conviction for sexual battery on a
restrained person (§ 243, subd. (a)); and one year consecutive for a prior prison term
enhancement (former § 667.5, subd. (b)) associated with the 2005 conviction. In
subsequent proceedings, the court awarded 631 days of custody credit, consisting of 549
actual and 82 conduct days. This court affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v.
Robertson (May 23, 2008, C056802) [nonpub. opn.].)
       In August 2022, the trial court set a resentencing hearing pursuant to sections
1172.7 and 1172.75. Defendant filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the prior prison
term enhancement because it was now invalid, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-
2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3.) Relying on section 1385, defendant further
argued the court should dismiss the 10-year firearm enhancement and five-year prior
serious felony enhancement. Defendant noted the application of the enhancements
resulted in a sentence greater than 20 years, multiple enhancements were alleged, and the
prior serious felony conviction was for a conviction that is over five years old. (§ 1385,
subds. (c)(2)(C), (B), & (H).) Defendant further argued the court must consider
“[defendant’s] record of post-conviction rehabilitation at CDCR, his age, and the time
remaining on this sentence without the enhancements.”

                                              2
       The prosecution filed a reply arguing the trial court should exercise its discretion
and decline to dismiss the firearm and prior serious felony enhancements because it was
not in the interest of justice to do so. The prosecution further argued the upper term for
the robbery count remained appropriate because defendant was “exceptionally
dangerous.” The prosecution also pointed to defendant’s three prior felony convictions
and noted defendant had cited no mitigating factors.
       During the October 2022 resentencing hearing, the trial court stated it had read and
considered the court’s file, the parties’ briefs, the current sentencing rules, and “other
changes in the law that reduce sentences or provide[] for judicial discretion so as to
eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentence[s].” The court
stated that no postconviction conduct materials had been submitted. The court invited
counsel to make additional arguments, and both parties submitted on their briefs. Noting
defendant had stipulated to (1) the upper term for the robbery charge and (2) an aggregate
sentence of 25 years for the robbery charge and related enhancements, the court
“decline[d] to exercise its discretion” and struck the prior prison term enhancement but
otherwise left the sentence unchanged, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 27 years.
The court did not award any custody credit.
       With respect to fines and fees, the trial court reduced the restitution fine (§ 1202.4,
subd. (b)) and corresponding (suspended) parole revocation fine (§ 12022.44) associated
with the 2005 conviction from $1,000 each to $200 each, finding it was in the interest of
justice to do so. The court also vacated a $20 court security fee associated with the 2007
robbery conviction. (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).)
                                       DISCUSSION
                                               I
                                     Full Resentencing
       Defendant first argues the trial court erred in failing to grant him a full
resentencing. He points to (1) the court’s statement that it was “declin[ing] to exercise its

                                              3
discretion,” and (2) the court’s explanation that it was doing so because the parties agreed
to a 25-year sentence in the original plea deal for the robbery conviction. Defendant
argues the trial court failed to reconsider “any aspect of the sentence imposed in 2007.”
He adds that these statements indicate the court misunderstood its discretion because it
“either believed that it was bound by the plea agreement or because [it] did not want to
exercise its mandatory discretion in light of the plea agreement.”
       Section 1172.75, which came into effect in 2022, generally invalidates sentence
enhancements imposed under former section 667.5, subdivision (b), with some
exceptions that are not relevant here. When presented with a person eligible for relief, a
trial court shall “recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (§ 1172.75, subd.
(c).) The statute requires the court to apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council,
as well as any other changes in law that reduce sentences or increase judicial discretion.
(§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(2).) The court may also consider postconviction factors, such as a
defendant’s disciplinary record or record of rehabilitation. (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(3).) As
courts have explained, “[b]y its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing,
not merely that the trial court strike the newly ‘invalid’ enhancements.” (People v.
Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402.)
       Although the trial court’s findings were largely implied, the record makes clear
that the court understood that all parts of defendant’s sentence were at play under section
1172.75. The court received extensive briefing from both parties, with defendant arguing
it was appropriate under section 1385 to strike the firearm enhancement and the prior
serious felony enhancement. Defendant pointed to multiple mitigating circumstances set
forth in the statute: (1) imposing the enhancements resulted in a sentence greater than 20
years, (2) multiple enhancements were alleged, and (3) the prior serious felony conviction
was for a conviction over five years old. (§ 1385, subds. (c)(2)(C), (B), & (H).) During
the hearing, the court made clear it had “read and considered” those briefs, indicating it
was well aware of the issues at stake and its discretion in resentencing. Further, the court

                                              4
stated it had considered the current sentencing rules and other changes that reduce
sentences, and it reduced some fines and fees “in the interest of justice.” While it is true
that the court did not offer a detailed explanation as to why it was declining to exercise its
discretion to strike the challenged enhancements beyond the fact that defendant had
originally stipulated to his sentence, given the parties’ extensive argument and the court’s
consideration of the matter, we may properly infer the court understood its discretion and
impliedly found striking the challenged enhancements was not in the furtherance of
justice and would endanger public safety. We find no error.
                                              II
                                           Credits
       Defendant further contends the trial court erred in failing to award presentence and
postsentence custody credits. The People concede the issue, and we agree.
       Here, the trial court not only failed to award the 631 days of custody credit (549
actual days plus 82 days of conduct credit) originally awarded in 2007, it also failed to
award credit for the time defendant spent in custody between the original sentencing in
2007 and the resentencing in 2022. A defendant is entitled to custody credit for the time
between the original sentencing and resentencing. (§ 2900.1 [when a sentence that a
defendant is currently serving is modified, the time already served shall be credited upon
resentencing].) Both parties agree that the “postsentence” custody credits are 5,586
days,2 meaning we must amend the judgment to award a total of 6,217 days of custody
credit. (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23 [when a resentencing occurs and
results in modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, “the trial
court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time
against the ‘subsequent sentence,’ ” but not award conduct credit].)

2 Defendant was originally sentenced on June 28, 2007. He was resentenced on
October 13, 2022.

                                              5
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is modified to reflect a total of 6,217 days of custody credit. As
modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended
abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.

                                                         /s/
                                                   Duarte, J.

We concur:

     /s/
Robie, Acting P. J.

    /s/
Ashworth, J. 

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

                                              6