Translate

Tuesday, November 12, 2024

RESENTENCING SB483: People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38 being reviewed (2024) by CA Supreme. Trial Court stated: not entitled to a full resentencing under SB483 because his prison priors were imposed and stayed rather than executed; a Split in authority exist!

This is a CA Court of Appeal case from the 4th District that was granted review (earlier this year) by the California Supreme Court. A Case to watch because the lower Court decided the inmate requesting resentencing, was not entitled to resentencing because their prison priors were imposed and stayed rather than imposed and executed.

There is a split in authority between this People v. Rhodius case and People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 (H049980) [full resentencing required based on SB 483 where prison priors were imposed but stayed] and People v. Christianson, D081330 (Nov. 17, 2023)  - same.

Here, in People v. Rhodius, the trial court declined to hold a full resentencing. Defendant appealed.

 ========================================================

Name: People v. Rhodius
Case #: E080064
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Citation: People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38
Opinion Date: 11/13/2023
 
Subsequent History:The petition for review is granted  2/21/24 (S283169)

========================================================

 

People v. Rhodius, S283169. (E080064; 97 Cal.App.5th 38; Riverside County
Superior Court; RIF1502535.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an
order denying a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter. This case presents the
following issue: Does Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) entitle a defendant to a
full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 if the defendant’s prior
prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) were imposed and stayed,
rather than imposed and executed.

 

CASE SUMMARY:

Defendant was not entitled to a full resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483 because his prison priors were imposed and stayed rather than executed. In 2016, defendant was sentenced to one felony count, and the court imposed but stayed one-year sentences for each of his two prison priors under section 667.5(b). In 2022, based on SB 483, CDCR identified defendant as potentially eligible for resentencing, and pursuant to CDCR’s notification, a hearing to recall and resentence was held. The trial court declined to hold a full resentencing because defendant’s prison priors were imposed and stayed rather than imposed and executed. Defendant appealed. Held: Affirmed. 

Section 1172.75(a) states that enhancements under section 667.5(b), with limited exceptions, are legally invalid. In People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, the California Supreme Court addressed the meaning of the word “impose” in the context of section 12022.53, holding “the word ‘impose’ ensures that the statute’s punishment and legislative intent will be carried out only if it is interpreted as shorthand for ‘impose and then execute.” Further, section 1172.75 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 lesser sentence would endanger public safety.

 To interpret “imposed” as used in section 1172.75(a) to include when a sentence was “imposed and stayed” would require any sentencing court faced with an “imposed and stayed” enhancement to arbitrarily lower a sentence simply because the judgment contained a stayed enhancement. The plain language of the statute and its legislative history support the court’s interpretation. Defendant was not entitled to a full resentencing because his prison prior enhancements were stayed.



Wednesday, October 16, 2024

New 2024 Parole Hearing Tips and Rev.2 of TIPs-2 for the Family of Inmates Now available to download

 TIPS (2024) for INMATES:

Our Law Office was finally able to update our 4-year old TIPs and Family TIPS-2. We made both 2024 documents available via a download link on our website. There is a small convenience fee that helps to subsidize our "website cart" for the ease to download (TIPs 2024) immediately. If you want our law office to US Legal Mail a copy to your Love One (LO) there is an extra fee for the hard copy; it includes the cost of Printing, Shipping and Handling. We will snail mail a copy to the prison for your LO, provide the Name/CDC#/Prison/housing Unit.

TIPS and TIPS-2, both documents are available via US Legal mail to the prison but the price includes our cost to Print a hard copy as well as Shipping and Handling. Click our website LINK HERE for TIPs  it will display 4 items; both TIPS document with two options  1) Download (cheaper) or 2) Hard copy that we will US Legal mail to the address you provide.

2024 TIPs is an easy to read document with a non-legalese approach to prepare the inmate on WHAT to expect during the Parole Suitability Hearing (BPH). TIPs also contains SAMPLE Questions from both the Commissioners (BOARD) and the Prison Psychologist. The New 2024 Edition contains information on the BPH 2024 Parole Process Handbook, COVID19 permanent Video Hearings, information on the new "Restitution Avoidance" Violations, and EDD Fraud violations.



 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TIPS-2 (2024) for Family of INMATES:

Due to COVID19  Prison movement was very restricted during 2020-2023; inmates could not attend Group or do Self Help classes to increase their Rehabilitation programs. The Law Office of Diane T. Letarte (619-233-3688) created TIPS-2 for the Family of the inmates so they could find external resources to help their Love One (LO) in prison.

We finally were able to update the TIPS-2 Self-Help Resources Packet for 2024; it is available to Friends and Family Members, for a nominal Web fee convenience to download it. You can make as many copies as you want once downloaded - there is no copyright restrictions. If you want our law office to US Legal mail a copy to the prison we charge for print, Shipping and handling - CLICK HERE for the Hard copy purchase of TIPS-2 and follow directions on our website.

The TIPS-2 Resource pages (download) (over 60 pages)  are from all different sources that our office as acquired over many years of practice, to assist our Long Term and Lifer Offender clients. We have compiled documents in one packet so that Family/Friends can assist their Love One in their Journey of Rehabilitation. We were able to add new Free Correspondence course addresses for inmates to use. Some classes are Free and others are available for a small fee for their services. This packet contains several different topics; Book List, Book Report Sample, Correspondence Classes (some free), Transitional Housing resources, Newsletters and how to subscribe to the Newsletters.  

The Law Office of Diane T. Letarte  has no affiliations with any of the Newsletters, except that we also subscribe to them; they have good updates on Parole Hearings and new case law.

 


 

 

 

 


Friday, September 6, 2024

08/21/2024 People v. Sorto : The trial court erred in denying defendant’s PC 1170(d) petition because sentence was functionally equivalent to LWOP terms

Case Name: People v. Sorto, Case #: B331652,
Court: CA Court of Appeal, District: 2 DCA, Division: 3, Opinion Date: 08/21/2024

The trial court erred in denying defendant’s PC 1170(d) petition when defendant was sentenced to more than 100 years for crimes committed when he was 15. 

California's youth offender laws, designed to provide rehabilitative opportunities for young people who have committed crimes, are facing scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This constitutional provision mandates that all individuals within a jurisdiction receive equal treatment under the law. Critics argue that the current youth offender laws may unfairly disadvantage certain groups of young offenders, particularly those from marginalized communities, leading to disparate outcomes. As a result, the Courts are doing their part to reassess and make sure the youth offender  laws are applied equitably to all youth offenders.

Under People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, juvenile offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to PC 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Heard is consistent with People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. Parole eligibility under PC 3051 does not render juvenile offenders ineligible for relief under section 1170(d).


SUMMARY:
 
A court sentenced Eddie Sorto to more than 100 years In prison for crimes he committed when he was 15 years old. After serving 15 years of his sentence, Sorto petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) (section 1170(d)).
 
Sorto acknowledged the statute expressly applies only to juvenile offenders sentenced to explicit life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) terms. Nevertheless, He argued equal protection guarantees relief to offenders, like himself, sentenced to long prison terms that are the functional equivalent of LWOP.

About a year before the trial court considered Sorto’s petition, the court in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 (Heard) held juvenile offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to section 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Despite this authority, the trial court denied Sorto’s petition on the ground that he had not been sentenced to an explicit LWOP term.

On appeal, Sorto raises the same equal protection argument and urges us to follow Heard.  The Attorney General argues Heard was wrongly decided and is contrary to California Supreme Court precedent. We reject the Attorney General’s arguments and conclude offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms —like  Sorto — are entitled to section 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

We also hold parole eligibility under section 3051 does not render those offenders ineligible for relief under section 1170(d).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Sorto’s petition and remand the case for the court to consider whether Sorto meets the other requirements for relief.

DISPOSITION
We reverse the order denying Eddie Sorto’s petition for relief under section 1170(d).  On remand, the court shall reconsider Sorto’s petition in accordance with this opinion.


The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

 https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B331652.PDF