People v. Ledesma

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID LEDESMA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

G063032

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

November 12, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County No 06NF4409, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied.

Richard L. Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MOORE J.

In 2006, David Ledesma, Jr., was 17 years old when he shot someone. The prosecution directly filed a case in "adult" criminal court. In 2008, Ledesma was convicted of attempted murder and street terrorism with gang and firearm enhancements. In 2012, following two appeals, a trial court sentenced Ledesma to life in prison with a minimum 15-year term, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life (effectively 40 years to life).

In 2022, a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) analyst notified the trial court of a possible error in its calculation of presentence credits recorded in the 2012 abstract of judgment. After the court set the matter on calendar, Ledesma filed a motion asking the trial court to transfer his case to a juvenile court for a retroactive fitness hearing. (See People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 (Lara).)

In September 2023, the trial court recalculated the number of presentence credits, denied Ledesma's motion for a retroactive fitness hearing, and later filed an amended abstract of judgment.

On appeal, Ledesma claims the trial court's recalculation of his credits caused his prior judgment to become nonfinal, and therefore the court erred by denying his motion for a retroactive fitness hearing. The Attorney General (AG) argues the court's orders were not appealable, and therefore the AG moves to dismiss Ledesma's appeal.

We find the court's recalculation of Ledesma's presentence credits did not vacate or affect the finality of his 2012 judgment; therefore, the court did not commit error when it denied Ledesma's motion for a retroactive fitness hearing. However, we also find the court's recalculation of credits was an appealable postjudgment order affecting his substantial rights (in fact, the recalculation was wrong) therefore, the AG's motion to dismiss is denied.

Effective January 1, 2024, while Ledesma's appeal was pending in this court, the Legislature amended Penal Code section 1172.1.^[1] In relevant part, the statute now allows a trial court to recall and resentence a defendant on its own motion "at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law." (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).)

We affirm the trial court's denial of Ledesma's motion for a retroactive fitness hearing. We reverse the trial court's recalculation of presentence credits and remand the matter so the trial court can correct its error and amend the abstract of judgment. Further, due to the intervening amendment of section 1172.1, and in the interests of justice, we direct the trial court on remand to allow Ledesma to invite the court-on its own 2 motion- to recall his sentence and to resentence him. ^[2]

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2007, the People filed an information charging Ledesma with attempted murder and street terrorism. The People further alleged gang and firearm enhancements. The crimes were alleged to have occurred on December 13, 2006, when Ledesma was 17 years old. The People directly filed the case in "adult" criminal court.

On September 10, 2008, a jury found Ledesma guilty of the charged crimes and found the sentencing allegations to be true.

On July 10, 2009, the trial court imposed a sentence of 40 years to life. The court awarded Ledesma 1,081 total days of presentence credits (940 custody and 141 conduct credits). The sentence and credits were later recorded on an abstract of judgment.

On October 1, 2010, this court affirmed Ledesma's convictions, but remanded the matter for resentencing. (People v. Ledesma (Oct. 1, 2010, G042332) [nonpub. opn.] ["it is up to the trial court to clarify its intentions and fulfill its original sentencing objectives"].)

On February 18, 2011, the trial court again imposed a sentence of 40 years to life. The court adjusted the presentence credits, now awarding Ledesma 1,723 total credits (1,498 custody and 225 conduct credits). The sentence and credits were later recorded on an amended abstract of judgment.

On September 19, 2011, this court again affirmed Ledesma's convictions, and again remanded the matter for resentencing. (People v. Ledesma (Sept. 19, 2011, G044846) [nonpub. opn.] ["the court can repeat the sentencing choices made at the last sentencing hearing with the exception of striking the gang enhancement"].)

On January 13, 2012, the trial court again imposed an effective sentence of 40 years to life (life in prison with a minimum 15-year term, plus a consecutive 25 years to life). The court again adjusted the presentence credits, now awarding Ledesma 2,142 total credits (1,863 custody and 279 conduct credits). The sentence and credits were later recorded on an amended abstract of judgment dated April 27, 2012.

On September 13, 2012, after Ledesma's counsel filed a "Wende brief," this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Ledesma (Sept. 13, 2012, G046366) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

On October 20, 2022, a CDCR analyst sent a letter to the superior court, which stated:

"A review of the documents delivered with the above-named inmate indicates the Abstract of Judgment and/or Minute Order may be in error, or incomplete, for the following reasons:

"The Amended Abstract of Judgment and Minute Order dated April 27 2012 reflect a total of 2,142 credits (1,863 actual and 279 local conduct). The Appellate court . . . held that when the trial court resentences a defendant who has already commenced serving a term for the crime, the trial court should only compute the actual time spent in prison following the initial sentencing. It is the responsibility of the [CDCR] to determine the amount of worktime credit to which an inmate is entitled from the date of the initial sentencing. At the time of defendant's original sentencing, he was granted a total of 1,081 days (940 actual and 141 local conduct). The Amended Abstract should reflect the recalculated conduct credits prior to the original sentencing date and the CDCR will apply the appropriate amount of behavioral credits from the original sentence date to the re-sentence date.

"Please review your file to determine if a correction is required. When notified by the [CDCR] that an illegal sentence exists, the trial court is entitled to reconsider all sentencing choices, People v. Hill 185 CalApp.3d 831. We would appreciate your providing a certified copy of any Minute Order or modified Abstract of Judgment to this Department. May we also request the attached copy of this letter be returned with your response."

On November 8, 2022, the superior court set the matter on calendar, and forwarded copies to the Orange County District Attorney and the Office of the Public Defender.

On August 15, 2023, Ledesma filed a document captioned:

"Resentencing brief: invitation for court to transfer case to juvenile court under Proposition 57." (Capitalization &boldface omitted.)

On September 6, 2023, the trial court: 1) denied Ledesma's motion for a retroactive fitness hearing; 2) reinstated the July 10, 2009, award of 1,081 total credits (940 actual and 141 conduct credits); and 3) ordered that an amended abstract of judgment be sent to the CDCR, along with a copy of the CDCR's October 20, 2022, letter. Ledesma appealed.

On August 14, 2024, this court invited the parties to address the January 1, 2024, amendments to section 1172.1 in supplemental briefs.

II. DISCUSSION

This appeal raises pure questions of law; therefore, we apply an independent standard of review. (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1128.)

In this discussion, we shall: A) analyze Ledesma's claim that he was entitled to a retroactive fitness hearing; B) analyze the AG's motion for dismissal; and C) analyze the trial court's calculation of Ledesma's credits.

A. Retroactive Fitness Hearing

Ledesma argues: "The recalculating of credits effectively caused what had been a final judgment to become a nonfinal judgment such that appellant had a right to the ameliorative benefits of Proposition 57." (Capitalization omitted.) We disagree.

Ordinarily, when a crime is alleged against a person under 18 years old, the prosecution files a case "within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court." (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a).) Prior to the passage of Proposition 57, a prosecutor also had the sole discretion to directly file a case against a minor 14 years of age or older in "adult" criminal court when certain crimes were alleged. (Former § 707, subd. (d), repealed by Prop 57, § 4.2, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) eff. Nov. 9, 2016.)

In 2016, the electorate approved Proposition 57, which effectively eliminated direct filing by prosecutors in criminal courts. (Lara, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 305.) Since November 9, 2016, a minor's juvenile case can now be transferred to a criminal court in certain cases but only after the prosecution files a motion to do so, and a juvenile court...