People v. Hall CA3

Filed 9/8/21 P. v. Hall CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093259

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. A-CR-0042409) v.

JAMES EARL HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1998, defendant James Earl Hall pleaded no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and causing injury while driving under the influence of alcohol, and he stipulated to a term of 25 years to life in prison. In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.91, subdivision (b)(1),1 which the trial court denied after finding the statute did not permit resentencing where, as here, the defendant agreed to a stipulated sentence. On appeal, defendant argues that his section 1170.91 petition reopened the judgment, requiring a full resentencing including the retroactive application of ameliorative statutes such as Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-

1 Undesignated references are to the Penal Code.

1

2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136), which would require that we strike his one-year prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). We conclude defendant’s section 1170.91 petition did not recall his sentence, nor did it reopen his judgment for resentencing. We therefore affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1998, defendant pleaded no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (d)), and driving under the influence of alcohol, causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted several enhancements, including that he had previously served a prison term after a felony conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Under the terms of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that defendant would serve an aggregate sentence of 25 years to life, comprised of 15 years to life for manslaughter, and a determinate term of 10 years. The 10-year term included the following consecutive terms: four years for driving under the influence causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), three years for causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), two years for injuring more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23182), and one year for the prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.91, subdivision (b)(1), which allows defendants to seek resentencing to allow the court to consider military-related trauma or mental health problems as a factor in mitigation. In December 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. At the hearing, defendant informed the trial court that he was prepared to testify and present evidence that he served in the military, which exacerbated his drinking. However, the trial court said it would “approach this case at a number of levels.” First, it noted that it was bound by People v. King (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 783 (King), which held that defendants who stipulated to a sentence could not obtain relief under section 1170.91. (King, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 793.) Because defendant stipulated to a sentence of 25 years to life, the