People v. Mendoza CA6

Filed 1/24/22 P. v. Mendoza CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H048031 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. EE014970 )

v.

MANUEL ANTONIO MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2020, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recommended that the trial court recall defendant Manuel Antonio Mendoza’s 23-year state prison sentence under former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)1 and resentence him in light of a recent amendment to the law. Defendant’s sentence was imposed in 2001 following his conviction by a jury of carjacking and other offenses and his admission to various enhancement allegations. The term includes a consecutive five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction. That enhancement was mandatory at the time defendant was sentenced; following a 2018 change in the law (Senate Bill No. 1393) it is discretionary. The trial court declined to recall defendant’s sentence, reasoning that Senate Bill No. 1393 does not apply to final judgments.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by refusing to exercise its discretion and denied him due process by failing to allow him an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Alternatively, defendant contends he is entitled to reconsideration in light of new legislation (Assembly Bill No. 1540), which changed the procedural and substantive law governing recall and resentencing recommendations. The Attorney General filed a concession brief in which he asserts that it is in the interest of judicial efficiency to remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration under the new law. We shall reverse and remand with instructions. I. BACKGROUND The underlying facts are not relevant to this appeal. Accordingly, we do not summarize them here. In 2001, a jury convicted defendant of carjacking (§ 215; count 1), unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 2), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242; count 4). Defendant admitted allegations that he had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subds. (a) and (b)), and had been out of custody on bail at the time he committed counts 1 and 2. The trial court sentenced defendant to 23 years in state prison. That term included a consecutive five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) for the prior serious felony conviction. In early 2020, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the trial court recommending that, pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d), defendant’s sentence be recalled and that he be resentenced. The letter explained that the recommendation “provide[d] the court with authority to resentence” defendant; that section 1170, subdivision (d) allows resentencing “in the same manner as if [the defendant] had not previously been sentenced”; and that, unlike when defendant was sentenced, the law now permits courts “to exercise their