People v. Martinez CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Dec 6, 2024 No. B333687Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's order denying a sentence recall request must be reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to apply the procedural requirements and the presumption in favor of recall established by subsequent legislation.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a sentence recall request without applying the procedural requirements of the subsequently enacted Penal Code section 1172.1.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The order denying recall and resentencing under section 1172.1 is reversed with directions to the trial court to reconsider the request and follow the procedures of the newly amended statute.”

“the new statute requires notice and appointment of counsel, as well as a presumption in favor of recall that can be overcome only by a finding that the inmate is an unreasonable risk to public safety.”

Filed 12/6/24 P. v. Martinez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B333687

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA055871-01) v.

MELISSA MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Walgren, Judge. Reversed. Sabrina R. Damast, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer and Noah P. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

Melissa Martinez appeals an order denying a request by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)1 to recall her sentence. We reverse. BACKGROUND In 2013, Martinez pleaded no contest to kidnapping and admitted an enhancement that she personally used a firearm. (§§ 207, subd. (a) & 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced her to 18 years in prison. On the same day, in a separate criminal case, appellant was sentenced to two years eight months for kidnapping and robbery to run concurrent with the 18-year sentence. On March 3, 2021, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) contacted the court and recommended that Martinez’s sentence be recalled and she be resentenced pursuant to former section 1170, subdivision (d). CDCR noted that after Martinez was sentenced, the Legislature amended the firearm enhancement statute so that the court could, in its discretion, strike or dismiss the enhancement in the interest of justice. CDCR also advised the court of Martinez’s considerable efforts at rehabilitation. On April 21, 2021, the trial court summarily denied the request to recall the sentence, finding it would not be in the interest of justice to resentence Martinez. The court commented on the violent nature of the crimes and the extreme danger in which Martinez had placed the multiple victims in both cases. The trial court also observed that the CDCR letter did not cite

People v. Martinez CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B333687

MELISSA MARTINEZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, P. J.

GRIMES, J.

WILEY, J.

AI Brief