People v. Pierce Docket: B322890 (Second Appellate District), Opinion Date: February 28, 2023. Appellant appealed an order denying a recommendation by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to recall his 2011 sentence and resentence him pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, former subdivision (d)(1). The People concede that pursuant to section 1172.1, “this Court should reverse the order denying the recall and remand for reconsideration of the [Secretary’s] request.” The Second Appellate District accepted the concession, reversed and did not reach additional contentions. The court explained that Appellant’s plea bargain included a stipulated sentence of 19 years and four months. The court reasoned that once the court has accepted the terms of the negotiated plea, “it lacks jurisdiction to alter the terms of a plea bargain so that it becomes more favorable to a defendant unless, of course, the parties agree.” But section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(3)(A) provides that “in the interest of justice and regardless of whether the original sentence was imposed after a . . . plea agreement,” the resentencing court may “reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence.” Thus, under the circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand the matter so that the trial court can consider the CDCR's recommendation to recall and resentence.
Did you know that many courts providing 1172.1 & 1172.6 relief considered a defendant's in-prison conduct and rehabilitation efforts? Posse Solutions LLC is here to educate them unto rehabilitation. This is what we do! Email us at info@possesolutions.com, or call us at (213) 572-6227 for more information. #SB1437 #SB775 #resentencing #rehabilitation
Comentários