California Court of Appeal Jun 17, 2022 No. E072620AUnpublished
Filed 6/17/22 P. v. Federico CA4/2 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E072620
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF017423)
ADRIAN GILBERT FEDERICO, OPINION ON TRANSFER
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John M. Monterosso,
Judge. Reversed with directions.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant
Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 18, 2008, defendant and appellant Adrian Gilbert Federico entered a plea
agreement and pled guilty to assault with a firearm. (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(2),
count 1.) He also admitted that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the
Lexis 2916, at pp. [2]-[3], [11]-[14]].) “Senate Bill 1391 is likewise an ameliorative
change to the criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment and
serves the broader purpose of decarceration.” (O.G. v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th
82, 101 [Senate Bill No. 1391 “amended Proposition 57 to prohibit minors under the age
of 16 from being transferred to adult criminal court.”].)
Here, defendant’s sentence was recalled pursuant to the letter from the CDCR,
which gave the court authority to resentence defendant pursuant to section 1170,
subdivision (d). Thus, defendant was entitled to any ameliorative changes enacted into
law after his initial judgment. Therefore, the court must refer the matter to the juvenile
court to determine whether defendant is entitled to any ameliorative effects under
Proposition 57 and/or section 1391.
4
DISPOSITION
Defendant’s sentence is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with
directions to refer the case to the juvenile court to determine whether defendant is entitled
to any ameliorative effects under Proposition 57 and/or Penal Code section 1391.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
MILLER J.
CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that because the defendant's sentence was recalled for resentencing, he is entitled to the benefit of ameliorative changes in the law, requiring the trial court to refer the matter to juvenile court to determine the applicability of Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391.
Issues
Whether a defendant whose sentence is recalled for resentencing is entitled to the retroactive application of ameliorative changes in the law, specifically Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391.
Disposition. Reversed with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“defendant was entitled to any ameliorative changes enacted into law after his initial judgment.”
“the court must refer the matter to the juvenile court to determine whether defendant is entitled to any ameliorative effects under Proposition 57 and/or section 1391.”