Court Opinion

ID: 9951683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 19:02:25.390821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:01.039222
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/18/24 P. v. Gleghorn CA2/6

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   2d Crim. No. B329646
                                                             (Super. Ct. No. 200213059)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  (Ventura County)

 v.

 KELSEY DRU GLEGHORN,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Kelsey Dru Gleghorn appeals from an order denying a
recommendation by the Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to recall his 2004
sentence and resentence him pursuant to Penal Code section
1172.1.1 We affirm the order.

         1 CDCR recommended resentencing under then-section

1170.03. The Legislature renumbered section 1170.03 as 1172.1
effective June 30, 2022, with no changes in text. (Stats. 2022 ch.
58, § 9.) Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
                        Appellant’s Sentence
       Appellant broke into the Simi Valley home of Jill and John
Billinger in 2001. Jill confronted him and he fled with a twelve-
pack of beer. John’s wallet and other personal items were later
found in the backyard. Police quickly located appellant and
eleven of the twelve beers at a neighbor’s house. A jury found
him guilty of first degree burglary (§§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21)).
He admitted three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd.
(a)) and three prior convictions within the meaning of the Three
Strikes Law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The
trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life as a third strike plus
15 years for prior serious felony enhancement.
            CDCR Recommends Recall and Resentencing
       The CDCR Secretary’s recommendation letter concerned
the 15-year enhancement. The letter noted that “courts are now
authorized to exercise their discretion to strike prior serious
felony convictions for purposes of enhancement . . . , or to strike
the punishment for the enhancement . . . , pursuant to PC section
1385.” It recommended the court exercise this discretion to recall
appellant’s sentence on his burglary conviction and resentence
him pursuant to section 1172.1.
                      Trial Court Denies Recall
       At hearing, appellant cited his age (60), length of
incarceration (20 years), and poor health as among the reasons
for striking the enhancement. He submitted certificates
commending him for participating in prison art programs, a
declaration describing a physical attack by a cell mate, and
health records documenting his recent surgery to address painful
back injuries. Prosecutors countered that appellant had a

                                 2
lengthy criminal record and many parole violations. The trial
court declined to strike the enhancements.
                            DISCUSSION
       Appellant contends the trial court misapplied section
1172.1 when it declined to recall his sentence without evidence
that he poses a current and unreasonable risk of committing a
“super strike” offense. We disagree.
       A trial court has the discretion to recall the sentence of a
defendant committed to state prison and resentence them upon
receiving a recommendation from CDCR. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).)
A CDCR recommendation creates “a presumption favoring recall
and resentencing of the defendant, which may only be overcome if
a court finds the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk
of danger to public safety.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (b)(2).) A defendant
meets this standard if there is “an unreasonable risk that the
petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of
[section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)].” (§ 1170.18, subd. (c).) “The
cited subdivision of section 667 identifies eight types of
particularly serious or violent felonies, known colloquially as
‘super strikes.’” (People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 351.)
This includes “[a]ny homicide offense [as] defined in Sections 187
to 191.5.” (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv)(IV).) We review this decision
for abuse of discretion. (People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th
858, 863-864.)
       The trial court did not misunderstand the resentencing
laws or place a less rigorous burden on prosecutors. Appellant’s
criminal history and post-conviction record provided ample
evidence to rebut section 1172.1’s presumption. He was convicted
of manslaughter as a juvenile after stabbing someone in the chest
in 1976. Ten years later he severely beat a housemate with a

                                 3
stick, breaking his lower jaw, knocking out six to ten teeth, and
mangling several fingers. We affirmed his battery conviction in
what we described as “a parable of the dangers of weaponry in
the hands of unreasonable powers who become unduly provoked
over minor irritations.” (People v. Gleghorn (1987) 193
Cal.App.3d 196, 199).) A domestic violence conviction followed in
2001 when he choked his girlfriend during an argument. He
kicked out the windows of police cars on three separate occasions
over a one-year period in 2001 and 2002. The last of these
resulted in a vandalism conviction. He also has convictions for
burglary (four, including the latest offense), trespass, reckless
driving, and numerous offenses related to drugs and alcohol. The
court revoked probation eight times between 1985 and 2001 after
appellant absconded or violated the terms of release. In addition,
CDCR found appellant guilty of 11 rules violation reports
between 2005 and 2015. He received eight counseling chronos
between 2004 and 2016. He tested positive for drug use three
times in prison and refused urinalysis on three other occasions.
       The trial court must “state on the record the reasons for its
decision to grant or deny recall and resentencing.” (§ 1172.1,
subd. (a)(7).) The transcript of the section 1172.1 hearing shows
the court considered appellant’s extensive history of violence and
criminality, weighed it against his evidence of rehabilitation, and
reasonably concluded appellant still poses an unreasonable risk
of danger to public safety. No abuse of discretion occurred.
                            DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order rejecting CDCR’s recommendation to
recall appellant’s sentence and resentence him, entered August 9,
2022, is affirmed.

                                 4
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                            CODY, J.

We concur:

     GILBERT, P. J.

     YEGAN, J.

                        5
                    Anthony J. Sabo, Judge
               Superior Court County of Ventura
                ______________________________

      Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               6