People v. Phillips CA1/1

Filed 12/1/25 P. v. Phillips CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A169001 v. (Contra Costa County ANTHONY DWAYNE PHILLIPS, Super. Ct. No. 2-308048-8) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2012, Anthony Dwayne Phillips was sentenced to 20 years in state prison after pleading guilty to forcible rape (Pen. Code2 § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and admitting three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), along with a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a prior strike (§ 1170.12) based on a robbery he committed in 1998. When Phillips sought resentencing in 2023 under sections 1172.75 and 1385, the superior court struck his three one-year enhancements for prior prison terms, but declined to strike a five- year enhancement for the prior strike. In this appeal, Phillips argues the

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

court abused its discretion by failing to give due weight to the fact that the prior-strike enhancement was “based on a prior conviction that [was] over five years old.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(H).) We agree, so we will reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings. When, as here, a sentence is recalled under section 1172.75, the defendant must receive “a full resentencing.” (People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855.) Under section 1385, subdivision (c)(1), “the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.” When exercising its discretion in that respect, the court “shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove” that the “enhancement is based on a prior conviction that is over five years old.” (§ 1385, subds. (c)(2), (c)(2)(H).) Here, in explaining why it would not dismiss the prior-strike enhancement, the superior court stated: “So I think that this is really a question of how seriously I consider [section] 1385, [subdivision] (c)(2)(H). And the context of it is that I don’t think it is very significant that the [prior conviction] was [more than five years] old, considering” that Phillips had only “been off of parole for” the prior conviction “for one year” at the time he committed the rape. “So I don’t think that there is a strong weight to give to the age of the prior conviction.” Put simply, this statement stands in direct contradiction to the text of section 1385, subdivision (c), which provides only one exception to the general rule that a prior conviction being more than five years old should be afforded great weight: Such evidence “weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2).) And here, the superior court appeared to find that exception to be inapplicable, saying: “I do not find