People v. Howard CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 2024 No. B334201Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 because the defendant's case was not on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's list of eligible cases at the time the motion was filed.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the defendant's case was not on the CDCR's list of eligible cases at the time of the motion.
Whether a defendant is entitled to resentencing under section 1172.75 if the prior prison term enhancement was imposed and stayed rather than imposed and executed.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the plain language of section 1172.75, because Howard’s case was not then on the CDCR’s list, Howard was not then entitled to relief.”

“the trial court’s hands were tied, and the court correctly denied Howard’s motion without prejudice to future proceedings consistent with section 1172.75.”

Filed 11/5/24 P. v. Howard CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B334201

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A030812 v.

RUBEN HOWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James D. Otto, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1987, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Ruben Howard of first-degree murder, found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery, and found various other allegations true, including a prior prison term allegation. (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); § 190.2, subd. (a)(17); § 667.5, subd. (b).)2 The trial court sentenced Howard to life without the possibility of parole on the murder, and imposed other determinate concurrent and stayed terms, including a one- year stayed prior prison term enhancement imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b). In June 2023, Howard moved for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483 and former section 1171.1.3 In July 2023, the

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The jury also convicted Howard of another offense and found other allegations true, though we omit those particulars because they have no direct relevance to this appeal. 3 Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) added section 1171.1 to the Penal Code. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728.) The Legislature later renumbered it to section 1172.75 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12, eff. June 30, 2022.) Hereafter, we will refer to the statute by its new code section. Section 1172.75, subdivision (a), states that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) Section 1172.75 instructs the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term

People v. Howard CA2/4

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, B334201

RUBEN HOWARD,

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MORI, J.

ZUKIN, J.

AI Brief