People v. Frederickson

California Court of Appeal Dec 5, 2025 No. G064577Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court's decision to vacate a first-degree murder conviction and impose judgment on a lesser offense under Penal Code section 1172.1 does not violate the prohibition in section 1385.1 against striking or dismissing special circumstances. When the underlying conviction is vacated, the special circumstance ceases to be operative by operation of law rather than by judicial action.

Issues

Does vacating a first-degree murder conviction under Penal Code section 1172.1 violate the prohibition in section 1385.1 against striking or dismissing special circumstances?
Does section 1172.1 constitute an unconstitutional amendment of the initiative statute section 1385.1?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We harmonize the statutes and hold that vacating the underlying convictions did not “strike or dismiss” the special circumstance.”

“If the underlying conviction falls through one of these permissible procedures, then the special circumstance falls by operation of law, not by any action of the “judge.””

“Section 1385.1 addresses only a judge’s efforts to divorce a special circumstance from a standing conviction. It simply does not restrict any of the permissible ways for vacating the underlying conviction.”

Filed 12/5/25

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G064577

v. (Super. Ct. No. 94WF2516)

TRAVIS SCOTT FREDERICKSON, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Brendan Sullivan, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.

The Orange County District Attorney appeals after the trial court vacated first-degree murder convictions and imposed judgment on lesser offenses of second-degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1.)1 The district attorney contends vacating the convictions, on which the jury found true a special circumstance, violated a statute prohibiting judges from “strik[ing] or dismiss[ing] any special circumstance.” (§ 1385.1.) We harmonize the statutes and hold that vacating the underlying convictions did not “strike or dismiss” the special circumstance. We affirm. FACTS A jury convicted Travis Scott Frederickson in 1998 of two counts of first degree murder and found he personally used a firearm. (§ 187; former § 12022.5, subd. (a).) The jury also found true a special circumstance of multiple murder. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) The trial court (Judge Richard L. Weatherspoon) sentenced Frederickson to life without the possibility of parole. (§ 190.2, subd. (a).) Frederickson invited the trial court in 2024 to recall his sentence and resentence him based on a change in the law allowing courts to strike firearm enhancements. (§ 1172.1; compare former § 12022.53, subd. (h) [“court shall not strike [enhancement] allegation”] with § 12022.53, subd. (h) [“court may . . . strike or dismiss an enhancement”].) The district attorney agreed the change would generally allow the court to vacate the true finding on the firearm enhancement and resentence Frederickson. The district attorney, however, continued: “But the court still does not, respectfully, does not have discretion under 1385.1 to do anything. And the People’s legal

People v. Frederickson

AI Brief

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

TRAVIS SCOTT FREDERICKSON, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SCOTT, J.

MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.

GOODING, J.

AI Brief