People v. Meier CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 11, 2025 No. D084099Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 because his current judgment was imposed after January 1, 2020, and his original 2018 sentence did not actually impose the prison prior enhancement.

Issues

Whether a defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when their current judgment was imposed after January 1, 2020.
Whether a prison prior enhancement that was orally declined by the sentencing court but stayed in the abstract of judgment qualifies as an 'imposed' enhancement under section 1172.75.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the plain language of the statute, we conclude that Meier was ineligible for resentencing.”

“The April 2021 judgment, not imposed prior to January 1, 2020, did not entitle him to resentencing by the plain language of section 1172.75.”

“Given the prior was not imposed, it was necessarily stricken and not part of the 2018 judgment.”

Filed 3/11/25 P. v. Meier CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084099

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD274701)

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MEIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Brendon Marshall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Christopher Michael Meier appeals the denial of his motion for

resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.75. Under the plain language of the statute, we conclude that Meier was ineligible for resentencing. Therefore, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2018, a jury convicted Meier of two counts of first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), with another person present as to one count (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)), and of one misdemeanor count of resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Subsequently, Meier admitted to having one prison prior (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668), one serious felony prior (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, 1192.7, subd. (c)), and one strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 668, 1170.12). The court imposed a prison term of 15 years eight months, consisting of eight years on the first burglary count (the middle term, doubled for the strike) and a consecutive two years and eight months on the second burglary count (one-third of the middle term, doubled for the strike), plus a five-year serious felony enhancement. The court stated, “I will not impose the [one] year enhancement for the prison

People v. Meier CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084099

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MEIER,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

HUFFMAN, J.

RUBIN, J.

AI Brief