People v. Pruitt CA3

Filed 6/27/22 P. v. Pruitt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093877

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10F06215)

v.

DARNELL EUGENE PRUITT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Darnell Eugene Pruitt appeals the trial court’s denial of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) recommendation to consider recalling his sentence and resentencing him. Agreeing with the parties that recent statutory changes warrant reconsideration, we reverse and remand. In doing so, we reject defendant’s request that, upon remand, we direct this case to be assigned to a different judge.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In February 2012, defendant entered a no contest plea, stipulating to a 30-year sentence consisting of five years for carjacking, doubled under the three strikes law, and a total of 20 years for four prior serious felony convictions—battery with serious bodily injury in 1989, making terrorist threats in 1994, second degree robbery in 1995, and second degree robbery with personal use of a firearm in 1998—pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) In January 2021, the Secretary of the CDCR (Secretary) sent a letter to the trial court recommending recall and resentencing of defendant pursuant to the former version of section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) (former section 1170(d)(1)), which authorized a court, at any time after receiving a recommendation from the CDCR, to recall an inmate’s sentence and resentence that inmate to a lesser sentence. The Secretary stated that “the COVID-19 pandemic has created an urgent necessity to decrease [CDCR’s] in-custody population,” especially for inmates such as defendant, then 53 years old, “who has been determined to be at particularly high-risk of serious complications should he contract COVID-19.” The Secretary noted defendant had served his base term and was sentenced before the passage of Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013), which granted courts discretion to strike serious felony enhancements in the interest of justice. Defendant had served six prior prison terms, had been returned to prison for multiple parole revocations, and had received three disciplinary infractions— two for fighting—while serving his current sentence. But he had “remained disciplinary free since January 2018” and had “taken advantage of positive activities, such as transitional programs, substance use disorder treatment, victim impact and awareness groups, voluntary education, and [had] maintained steady employment.”