Court Opinion

ID: 9781676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:04:47.640454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:29.956831
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/30/23 P. v. Dering CA6
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                         H050744
                                                                    (Monterey County
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                               Super. Ct. No. SS091218A)

             v.

 PHILLIP JAMES DERING,

             Defendant and Appellant.

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1
         In 2009, defendant Philip James Dering was convicted by a jury of assault by
means or force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) 2 and
battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). The jury also found true the
allegations that Dering inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), had served two
prior prison terms (former § 667.5, subd. (b)), had a prior conviction for a serious felony
(§ 667, subd. (a)), and had a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The trial

         1
         We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards
of Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2007) 97
Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)
         2
             Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
court sentenced him to a total term of 18 years, which included two one-year terms for
his prior prison terms under former section 667.5, subdivision (b).3
       On June 20, 2022, Dering filed a letter requesting that the trial court recall his
sentence and resentence him pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), as
his enhancements under former section 667.5, subdivision (b) were no longer valid.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his request, finding “by clear and
convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety based
on [Dering’s] behavior in state prison.”
       The parties agree that the trial court erred and that remand is required. Effective
January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), amended section 667.5,
subdivision (b) and limited the enhancement for prior prison terms to those prison terms
served for a conviction of a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and
Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b). Effective January 1, 2022, the
Legislature also enacted Senate Bill No. 483. In part, Senate Bill No. 483 added former
section 1171.1 to the Penal Code, which was subsequently renumbered to
section 1172.75. (Stats. 2021, Ch. 728, § 3; Stats. 2022, Ch. 58, § 12, eff. June 30, 2022.)
Section 1172.75 provides that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to
January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any
enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.”
(§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) Section 1172.75, subdivision (b) sets forth a procedure by which
the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall identify
eligible persons in custody, and subdivision (c) sets forth a timeline by which the trial
court shall review, recall, and resentence eligible individuals. In part, section 1172.75,

       3
      This court affirmed his conviction in 2010. (People v. Dering (Dec. 21, 2010,
H035131) 2023 WL 51311777 [nonpub. opn.].)

                                              2
subdivision (d)(1) specifies that “[r]esentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a
lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the
repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that
imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.”
       Here, Dering’s prior prison terms were for a conviction for assault with a deadly
weapon (§ 245, subd. (c)), possession of a firearm as a felon (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), and
transportation of a controlled substance (Health and Safety Code, § 11379, subd. (a)),
neither of which is a sexually violent offense as defined under Welfare and Institutions
Code section 6600, subdivision (b). The two prior prison term enhancements are thus
legally invalid. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) Nonetheless, the trial court declined to strike
Dering’s prior prison term enhancements on the ground that doing so would endanger
public safety. Section 1172.75, however, permits the trial court’s consideration of public
safety only in resentencing a defendant after the legally invalid enhancements have been
stricken. (See § 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).)
       Thus, the trial court erred by declining to strike the invalid enhancements and the
matter must be remanded for resentencing. 4

       4
          As we have noted, section 1172.75, subdivision (b) expressly delegates to the
CDCR the task of identifying eligible persons in their custody and providing to the trial
court relevant identifying information by certain deadlines—March 1, 2022 for
individuals who have served their base term and any other enhancements and are
currently serving a sentence based on the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement (id.,
subd. (b)(1)), and July 1, 2022, for all other individuals (id., subd. (b)(2)). In People v.
Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375 (Burgess), the First District held that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of his pro se
petition for resentencing under section 1172.75, as the trial court itself lacked jurisdiction
to adjudicate the motion as it was not initiated by the CDCR. (Id. at pp. 381-382; see
also People v. Escobedo (2023) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2023 WL 4781641] (Escobedo)
[accord].)
        Here, Dering filed a letter in propria persona citing Senate Bill Nos. 136 and 483,
but it is unclear from the record whether the CDCR had already initiated the resentencing
process by identifying Dering to the trial court. At the first of several hearings following
the trial court’s receipt of Dering’s letter, the trial court stated that it had already received
                                               3
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is reversed for the sole purpose of resentencing. On remand, the
trial court is directed to vacate Dering’s sentence, strike the prior prison term
enhancements (former Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b)), and resentence Dering under
Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (d).

from the CDCR a list of “about 40 individuals” eligible for resentencing. In contrast to
Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th 375, neither the trial court nor the district attorney at any
point indicated that Dering was absent from this list. And in contrast to Escobedo, supra,
__ Cal.App.5th __ [2023 WL 4781641], there is no dispute that Dering was “currently
serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement” now rendered legally
invalid. The Attorney General accordingly does not contest this court’s jurisdiction to
consider this appeal.
                                              4
                                        ____________________________
                                        LIE, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________________
GROVER, ACTING P.J.

_____________________________________
BROMBERG, J.

People v. Dering
H050744