People v. Sanders CA2/3

Filed 1/30/26 P. v. Sanders CA2/3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B336316

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA067047) v.

RICHARD L. SANDERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judith Meyer, Judge. Reversed and remanded with direction. Jeffrey Manning-Cartwright, 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, Jason Tran and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________ In 2006, Richard Sanders was sentenced under the “Three Strikes” law and his sentence included prior prison enhancements. In 2022, the trial court resentenced Sanders under Penal Code1 section 1172.75, which invalidated prior prison enhancements, by striking the enhancements. The trial court, however, left intact the Three Strikes sentences. Sanders appealed, contending that his Three Strikes sentences were unauthorized under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act), and therefore the trial court erred by failing to resentence him. This court affirmed the order, finding that section 1172.75 was not a proper procedural vehicle by which to raise an issue under the Reform Act. Sanders petitioned for review in the California Supreme Court, the court granted review, and it has now directed us to vacate our decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838 (Guevara), which held that a trial court is required to apply the Reform Act at a section 1172.75 proceeding absent a finding the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Under Guevara, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND I. The underlying convictions In 2004 and 2005, three homes in Long Beach were burglarized. (People v. Sanders (Nov. 21, 2007, B189679)