People v. Super. Ct. of Santa Barbara

315 Cal.Rptr.3d 883

The PEOPLE, Petitioner,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY,

Respondent;

Edgardo Ortiz Guevara, Real Party in Interest.

2d. Crim. No. B329457

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6.

Filed December 8, 2023

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, Von T. Nguyen Deroian, Judge (Super. Ct. No. 1183843) (Santa Barbara County)

John T. Savrnoch, District Attorney, and Marguerite Clipper Charles, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner.

Gregory D. Totten, Ventura, for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Tracy Macuga, Public Defender, and Laura Arnold, Deputy Public Defender, for Real Party in Interest.

Michael S. Romano, for Three Strikes Project, David Mills, George Gascon, Heidi Rummel and Michael Vitiello as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri, Theresa A. Patterson, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Christopher G. Sanchez, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Attorney General as Amicus Curiae, upon the request of the Court of Appeal

GILBERT, P. J.

[1]. The role of the judiciary is to interpret statutes, not to draft them. Our opinion follows this dictum.

Edgardo Ortiz Guevara was sentenced to 28 years to life under the “Three" Strikes” law. His third strike was a non-serious, nonviolent felony. Guevara also had prior prison term enhancements. When the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36) (Reform Act) was enacted by California voters, Guevara petitioned the trial court for relief from his life sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126.¹ The trial court denied the petition in February 2015. In January 2028, Guevara moved to have his prior prison term enhancements struck pursuant to section 1172.75.² Guevara claimed that the resentencing provision of section 1172.75, subdivision (d), entitled him to have his three strikes life term reduced to eight years, double the term for his current offense, notwithstanding the denial of his section 1170.126 petition. The trial court agreed with Guevara and reduced, his life term to eight years. The People petitioned this court for a writ of mandate or prohibition seeking to direct the trial court to recall its sentence and reinstate Guevara’s 25-years-to-life sentence. We issue the writ.

FACTS

In 2009, Guevara was convicted of felony spousal abuse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)). Felony spousal abuse is not a serious or violent felony as defined in sections 667.5, subdivision (c),.and 1192.7, subdivision (c). Guevara also admitted to two prior strike convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subd. (e) (2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). and three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Guevara to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law plus three years for the prior prison term enhancements. We affirmed. (People v. Guevara (Sept. 13, 2010, B218153), 2010 WL 3529811 [nonpub. opn.].)

In 2013, Guevara petitioned for resentencing under the Reform Act. The trial court denied him relief, finding that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) We affirmed. (People v. Guevara (Apr. 7, 2016, B262054), 2016 WL 1402054 [non-pub. opn.].) In upholding the trial court’s public safety determination, our opinion noted:

“Guevara’s criminal record, record of discipline, and the testimony of the witnesses support the trial court’s finding. Guevara has an extensive criminal history, which includes five felonies, multiple prison and jail sentences, and probation and parole violations. Although his prior strikes are remote and did not involve personal infliction of violence, he recently possessed deadly weapons in. prison. In 2011, a correctional officer searched his cell and found three metal ‘inmate manufactured’ weapons hidden in two bars of soap. Two of the weapons were sharpened to a point. In 2014, while this petition was pending, Guevara was disciplined for possessing a deadly weapon when a piece of a razor blade was found in the common area of his shared cell. He testified at the resentencing hearing he had no good time of work time credits.

“A gang expert testified that Guevara is a member in good standing of Casa Blanca, a southern Hispanic and Sureno gang. Prison records from 2001 show that he was working with the Mexican Mafia in prison. He was the ‘shot caller’ for members of southern Hispanic gangs from the ‘Inland Empire.’ He was placed in administrative segregation in 2001 because the Inland Empire gangs under his influence were ‘the major obstacle’ to a negotiated truce between northern and southern gang members. In 2012, a prison gang roster showed Guevara was still a southern Hispanic gang member in good standing.” (People v. Guevara,, supra, B262954).)

In 2021, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) adding what is now section 1172.75 to the Penal Code. In January 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified Guevara as being eligible to have his prior prison term enhancements stricken pursuant to section 1172.75, which retroactively invalidated such enhancements imposed prior to January 1, 2020.

In June of 2023, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether Guevara was entitled to have his sentence recalled and be resentenced. The People agreed that the prior prison term enhancements must be stricken but disagreed with Guevara on the scope of resentencing.

Section 1172.75, subdivision (c), provides that if the current judgment includes a prior prison term, “the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” Section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(2), provides that at the resentencing hearing, “the court shall apply … any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.”

The People argued that striking the prior prison term enhancements did not affect Guevara’s three strikes sentence of 25 years to life. Guevara argued that he must be resentenced under the Reform Act because section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(2) expressly requires the court to “apply …. any other changes in the law that reduce sentences.” Because his third strike was not a serious or violent felony, Guevara argued that the sentence for his current felony should be only doubled. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C).)

The trial court expressed its concern for public safety, but believed it was compelled by law to resentence Guevara. After striking the three prior prison term enhancements, the court resentenced Guevara to eight years, double the upper term on the felony spousal abuse count. This would make Guevara eligible for imminent release. The People sought a stay and a writ of mandate and appealed to challenge the resentencing. We issued a stay and elected to review the matter in the writ proceeding to expedite its resolution.

DISCUSSION

[2] Under the original Three Strikes law, a defendant with two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions would be sentenced to a life term for a current felony conviction even if the current conviction was not for a serious or violent felony. (Former §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C).) Voters enacted the Reform Act, as Proposition 36, in 2012. Under the Reform Act, a defendant with two or more prior convictions for serious or violent felonies, whose current conviction was for a nonserious or nonviolent felony, would no longer receive a life sentence. Instead, the term for the current offense would be doubled. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C).)

The Reform Act also provides that any person currently serving a life term pursuant to the Three Strikes law for conviction of a felony that is not serious or violent may petition for resentencing. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).)³ The petition must be filed within two years of the effective date of section 1170.126, November 7, 2012, or on a later date upon a shoving of good cause. (Ibid.) If the petitioner satisfies the criteria for resentencing, the petitioner shall be resentenced as a second stinker “unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).)

[3] Guevara sought resentencing under section 1172.75. Section 1172.75, subdivision (a), provides that a prior prison term enhancement imposed prior to January 1, 2020, is invalid, except for an enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense. Section 1172.75, subdivision (c), provides that if the court finds that the defendant’s current judgment includes an invalid prior prison term enhancement, the court must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Crucial to Guevara’s argument is section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(2): “The court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.”

Guevara’s view of section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(2), automatically mandates the trial court to reduce his indeterminate life term imposed under the Three Strikes law to a determinate term of eight years. Under this view, section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(2), renders void for those lucky enough to have had a prior prison term enhancement the provisions of section 1170.126, requiring the filing of a petition, the deadline for filing the petition, and the trial court’s discretion to deny the petition on the ground of an unreasonable risk to public safety. In other words, contrary to the express words of section 1170.126, subdivision (f), the trial court must...