People v. Saeteurn CA3

Filed 3/1/22 P. v. Saeteurn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092736

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 03F00640)

v.

CHAN SAETEURN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Chan Saeteurn appeals the trial court’s denial of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) recommendation under Penal Code 1 section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) (section 1170(d)(1)), that the trial court consider recalling defendant’s sentence and resentencing him due to his rehabilitative efforts in prison. He contends the trial court violated his right to due process by declining to recall defendant’s

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

sentence without providing notice and a hearing. After the parties submitted briefing, defendant was released from CDCR custody, and the Governor signed Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assem. Bill No. 1540) into law. (Stats. 2021, ch. 719 §§ 1-7). We requested supplemental briefing on the effect, if any, of these changed circumstances on this appeal. Defendant now asserts that his release from incarceration and the passage of Assem. Bill No. 1540 “mooted [his] previously requested relief,” but asks that we nonetheless issue an opinion rejecting the People’s now-abandoned argument that defendant’s stipulated sentence bars him from resentencing. The People, however, concede that defendant is entitled to reversal and a resentencing hearing consistent with the provisions of Assem. Bill No. 1540. They further maintain that defendant’s current parole status has no effect on this appeal. We agree with the People. Because the measure has taken effect before this case is final, and because we are not persuaded that defendant’s request for relief is moot, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the request. I BACKGROUND2 In March 2005, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree murder and personal discharge of a firearm. He received a stipulated sentence of 25 years to life. In 2007, we affirmed his conviction on appeal. (People v. Saeteurn, supra, C050213.) On September 20, 2019, CDCR sent Sacramento County Superior Court a letter under section 1170(d)(1) recommending the trial court consider recalling defendant’s commitment and sentence for his 2005 convictions and resentence him based on his postconviction behavior and rehabilitative efforts. Attached to the letter were a