People v. Crowell CA3

Filed 11/28/22 P. v. Crowell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C095502

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06F715)

MARGUS EVERETT CROWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Margus Everett Crowell appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition to recall his sentence and resentence him following a recommendation from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying CDCR’s recommendation, and recent statutory amendments require remand. The People agree remand is appropriate in light of the amendments, and so do we. We will reverse the trial court’s order and remand for reconsideration under the amended statute. Under the circumstances, we do not address defendant’s abuse of discretion arguments. BACKGROUND In 2006, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and admitted two prior strike convictions (§ 1170.12) and a prior serious felony

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 30 years to life in state prison. In 2021, pursuant to former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), CDCR sent a letter to the trial court recommending the trial court recall defendant’s sentence and resentence defendant based on his exceptional conduct in prison. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for recall and resentencing. In his brief supporting the petition, defendant included an assessment by a correctional consultant. In the assessment, the consultant recounted an interview with defendant where defendant said he started smoking marijuana with his parents and siblings when he was very young, dabbled with meth at the age of 12, and at the age of 17 his best friend died which was the end of the world to defendant. Defendant said his life spiraled out of control and he paid for his addiction by committing burglaries. But defendant said he was determined to find out why he had committed the crimes, and he had been working on changing himself. The trial court held a hearing on October 25, 2021, and denied the petition. The trial court acknowledged defendant’s efforts and improvements but expressed concerns about the CDCR letter and noted that although defendant has done well in prison, he had not been successful on parole. On December 7, 2021, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. Two weeks later, on December 23, 2021, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in the trial court. In light of the notice of appeal, the trial court declined to rule on defendant’s motion for reconsideration. DISCUSSION The parties agree remand is appropriate in light of the recent amendments to former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). So do we. Former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), effective August 6, 2020, authorized a trial court, at any time upon the recommendation of CDCR, to recall a defendant’s