People v. Jenkins CA2/2 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/26/24 P. v. Jenkins CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,                                                            B328802
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BA101113)
    v.
    MICHAEL SCHNARD JENKINS,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County. Henry J. Hall, Judge. Reversed and remanded
    with directions.
    Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
    Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Stephanie
    C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
    Respondent.
    _________________________________
    Michael Jenkins appeals the denial of a request by the
    Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and
    Rehabilitation (CDCR) to recall his sentence and strike a one-
    year prior prison enhancement pursuant to Penal Code1 section
    1172.75. The People concede that the superior court erred in
    refusing to recall the sentence and resentence appellant. We
    accept the People’s concession and remand the matter to the
    superior court for recall and resentencing in accordance with
    section 1172.75.
    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    In 1995, a jury convicted appellant of assault with intent to
    commit rape (§ 220), first degree robbery (§ 211), and first degree
    burglary (§ 459). The jury found a firearm enhancement
    allegation true as to each offense. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The jury
    also found that appellant had two prior serious felony convictions
    for robbery (§§ 667, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (b)), as well as prior
    convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and receiving stolen
    property (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court found the two prior
    robbery convictions were “strikes.” (§§ 667, 1170.12.) After
    several resentencing hearings, the trial court sentenced appellant
    to 37 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life (§ 667, subd. (b)–
    (i)), plus two five-year terms for the prior serious felony
    conviction enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)), plus one year for the
    weapon use (§ 12022, subd. (b)), and one additional year for one of
    the prior prison terms2 (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
    1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    2 The court also imposed and stayed a one-year term for
    one of the other prison priors. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
    2
    Following the enactment of Senate Bill No. 483, which
    eliminated enhancements for prior prison terms (Stats. 2021,
    ch. 728), the California Department of Corrections and
    Rehabilitation (CDCR) requested that the sentencing court recall
    appellant’s sentence, strike the one-year prior prison term
    enhancement, and resentence appellant (§ 1172.75). The court
    summarily denied the request on the ground that one of
    appellant’s current convictions was for a sexually violent offense
    (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (b)), which precluded relief
    under Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (a).
    DISCUSSION
    The Trial Court Erred in Denying the Request for
    Recall of Appellant’s Sentence; the Matter Must
    Be Remanded for Recall and Resentencing
    Effective January 1, 2022, Penal Code section 1172.75
    eliminated the one-year prior prison term enhancement under
    section 667.5, subdivision (b) for all defendants sentenced before
    January 1, 2020, whose sentences included the enhancement.
    (Pen. Code, § 1172.75, subd. (a).) The sole exception was for “any
    enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent
    offense” under section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
    (Pen. Code, § 1172.75, subd. (a).) The legislation requires the
    CDCR to identify all persons in CDCR custody currently serving
    a sentence that includes the one-year enhancement and notify
    the sentencing court to have the sentence recalled and the
    defendant resentenced. (§ 1172.75, subds. (b) & (c).)
    In this case, one of appellant’s current offenses was for a
    sexually violent offense⎯assault with intent to commit rape⎯but
    none of his prior prison terms was for a conviction of a sexually
    violent offense as defined by Welfare and Institutions Code
    3
    section 6600, subdivision (b). Accordingly, the prior prison term
    imposed as a part of appellant’s sentence pursuant to Penal Code
    section 667.5, subdivision (b) is legally invalid. (Pen. Code,
    § 1172.75, subd. (a).)
    The trial court erred in refusing to recall appellant’s
    sentence and resentence him in accordance with section 1172.75,
    subdivisions (b) through (d).
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying the California Department of
    Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary’s request to recall
    appellant’s September 3, 1998 sentence and to resentence him is
    reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court for recall
    of appellant’s sentence and to resentence in accordance with
    Penal Code section 1172.75.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    LUI, P. J.
    We concur:
    CHAVEZ, J.
    HOFFSTADT, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B328802

Filed Date: 1/26/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/26/2024