People v. Rangal CA3

Filed 8/5/22 P. v. Rangal CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094873

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFCOD20150005682, v. SF130853A)

TRINIDAD ALEXANDER RANGAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Trinidad Alexander Rangal appeals the trial court’s denial of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) recommendation to consider recalling defendant’s sentence and resentencing him. Agreeing with the parties that recent statutory changes warrant reconsideration, we reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND In July 2015, defendant entered a guilty plea, stipulating to a sentence of 14 years for first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),1 enhanced for personal use of a firearm

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

under section 12022.53, subdivision (b), and two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211). In April 2021, the secretary of the CDCR 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 CDCR, to recall an inmate’s sentence and resentence the inmate to a lesser sentence. The recommendation was based on recent amendments to section 12022.53, subdivision (h) granting courts discretion to strike or dismiss firearms enhancements in the interest of justice. In May 2021, the trial court, without appointing counsel, providing notice to defendant, holding a hearing, or explaining its reasoning, declined to exercise its discretion to recall defendant’s sentence or strike the enhancements. While defendant’s appeal was pending, Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 719, §§ 1-7; Assembly Bill 1540) came into effect on January 1, 2022, and moved the recall and resentencing provisions of former section 1170(d)(1) to section 1170.03. As of June 30, 2022, section 1170.03 was recodified without substantive change as section 1172.1. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 9.) II. DISCUSSION The parties agree, albeit for different reasons, that reconsideration of defendant’s case under Assembly Bill 1540 is warranted. Because we conclude that Assembly Bill 1540 applies to defendant’s case as a clarification of former section 1170(d)(1), we reverse and remand. Assembly Bill 1540 revised the recall and resentencing procedures under former section 1170(d)(1) by adding section 1170.03 (now section 1172.1), which requires a resentencing court to, among other things, hold a hearing, consider certain mitigating factors related to the defendant, and state on the record its reasons for granting or denying recall and resentencing. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(4), (6), (8).) And where, as here, the CDCR