People v. Easley CA2/3

Filed 1/25/22 P. v. Easley CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B306376

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA085062) v.

CHARLES J. EASLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark E. Windham, Judge. Reversed with directions. Susan Morrow Maxwell, 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, Noah P. Hill and Michael R. Johnsen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Charles J. Easley appeals from an order declining to resentence him under Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (d), contending that the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion under that section. He also contends that remand is necessary for resentencing under newly enacted Senate Bill No. 483. The Attorney General concedes both points, and we agree that the matter must be remanded for resentencing. BACKGROUND In 2014, Easley pled guilty to first degree burglary (§ 459) and admitted he had one prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and of section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and two prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). That same year, the trial court sentenced Easley to four years, doubled to eight years under the Three Strikes law, five years (§ 667, subd. (a)), and to two 1-year terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In 2019, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended to the trial court that it resentence Easley under section 1170, subdivision (d), noting that Easley’s sentence included a five-year enhancement that courts now had discretion to strike. Former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), provided that a trial court may, on CDCR’s recommendation, recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if the defendant had not previously been sentenced, provided that the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence. This section applies to plea agreements and