People v. Kimble CA3

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Kimble CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097389

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM026600)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

KELLY VAUGHN KIMBLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

In November 2008, the trial court sentenced defendant Kelly Vaughn Kimble to 25 years to life under the “Three Strikes” law, plus an additional year for a prior prison term enhancement. In October 2022, defendant appeared for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 At the resentencing hearing, the trial court struck defendant’s one-year prior prison term enhancement, but otherwise left his sentence unchanged. Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in resentencing him under

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. This statute was originally enacted as section 1171.1 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3), but it was subsequently amended and renumbered as section 1172.75 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12). We refer to section 1172.75 throughout this opinion.

1

section 1172.75 without applying the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012)) (Reform Act). The Attorney General countered that defendant was not entitled to resentencing under the Reform Act as part of his resentencing under section 1172.75. In our original opinion, we agreed with the Attorney General and affirmed. (People v. Kimble (July 14, 2023, C097389) [nonpub. opn.].) Two weeks later, the Attorney General filed a petition for rehearing, informing us that his position had changed, and that he now conceded defendant was entitled to application of the Reform Act’s revised penalties at his resentencing. We denied the Attorney General’s rehearing petition. The California Supreme Court granted review and subsequently transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our decision and “reconsider the cause in light of the Attorney General’s concession that defendant was entitled to resentencing under the revised penalty provisions of the” Reform Act. We reconsidered and again affirmed. (People v. Kimble (Feb. 9, 2024, C097389) [nonpub. opn.].) The California Supreme Court again granted defendant’s petition for review, and, on December 17, 2025, transferred the matter back to this court, this time with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838 (Guevara). On December 23, 2025, we vacated submission of the case and our prior decision. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, arguing that, under Guevara, he is entitled to remand to the trial court for a full resentencing. Having reconsidered the matter in light of Guevara, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for full resentencing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of felony stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)), which constituted a third strike offense because he had two prior strike convictions, and which, at the time, subjected him to an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law. The trial court imposed that sentence, plus one year for a prior