People v. Dismuke CA5

Filed 3/13/26 P. v. Dismuke CA5 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087359 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1006268) v.

MELVIN DISMUKE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Carrie M. Stephens, Judge. Carlo Andreani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary and Ian Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

This appeal involves the interplay between Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012)), and Penal Code1 section 1172.75, which invalidated prior prison term enhancements. Defendant Melvin Dismuke was originally sentenced in 2003. His sentence included three terms of 25 years to life under the original “Three Strikes” law, as well as a prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b). In 2023, the trial court resentenced Dismuke under section 1172.75 by striking the enhancement, but it left intact the three strikes terms. Dismuke appealed, contending that his three indeterminate life terms were unauthorized under the Reform Act, and therefore the trial court erred by failing to reduce his sentence further. The People agreed with Dismuke. However, we affirmed the judgment on March 27, 2025, in an unpublished decision. Dismuke petitioned the California Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court granted and deferred the matter pending consideration of a related issue in People v. Superior Court (Guevara), S283305, or pending further order of the court. On October 9, 2025, our Supreme Court issued People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838 (Guevara). On December 17, 2025, our Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court, with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Guevara. We vacated our opinion on December 19, 2025, and the parties filed supplemental briefing. We agree with Dismuke that Guevara requires us to remand for a new resentencing hearing.