People v. Stinson CA3

Filed 11/23/22 P. v. Stinson CA3 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093993

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F04902)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER AFTER GRANT OF DAVONTE STINSON, REHEARING

Defendant and Appellant.

We granted rehearing from an opinion issued in this case after we received it on transfer from our Supreme Court, subsequent to that court’s decision in People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688. As we describe in more detail below, we have received and considered multiple briefs from both parties in this case, as well as supplemental authority letters from both parties, and heard oral argument on rehearing.

1

We now agree with the parties that the matter should be remanded for a full resentencing hearing, where the trial court may consider exercise of its discretion regarding the sentencing issues on appeal as well as any other new laws related to sentencing that may apply to defendant. BACKGROUND “On January 1, 2018, Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 620) went into effect. (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1-2.) Senate Bill No. 620 amended sections 12022.5 and 12022.53, granting trial courts discretion pursuant to section 1385 to strike or dismiss certain firearm enhancements. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (c) (12022.5(c)); 12022.53, subd. (h) . . . .) “Relying primarily on legislative intent, on January 20, 2022, our Supreme Court held in Tirado that although the amendments at issue spoke only in terms of striking or dismissing a firearm enhancement, trial courts also have discretion under Senate Bill No. 620 to reduce section 12022.53 enhancements to uncharged lesser included enhancements. As relevant here, this interpretation left unresolved an apparent conflict with other unamended statutory provisions that required imposition of the harshest available punishment (see § 12022.53, subd. (f) . . .) [requiring the court to impose ‘the enhancement that provides the longest term of imprisonment’] and appeared to limit sentencing to enhancements contained within the same statute unless the other statute provided for harsher consequences (§ 12022.53, subd. (j) . . . [requiring the court to impose punishment for the § 12022.53 enhancement ‘rather than imposing punishment authorized under any other’ statute unless the other enhancement provides for a more severe penalty or a longer prison term].” (People v. Johnson (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1080-1081 (Johnson).) Several years before Senate Bill No. 620 was enacted, a jury found defendant guilty of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, two counts of robbery, and two counts of firearm possession by a felon. (People v. Stinson (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 464, 474.) The