People v. Knapp CA3

Filed 12/18/23 P. v. Knapp CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098125

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 118548)

v.

ERIC KNAPP,

Defendant and Appellant.

Approximately 30 years ago, a jury found defendant Eric Knapp guilty of numerous sexual offenses committed against two different victims on two separate occasions. As a result, he is required to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code,1 § 290, subd. (c).) On October 30, 2020, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.91. On February 23, 2023, the trial court denied the petition, because it found defendant was not suitable for resentencing. In this appeal,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition. The People argue, among other things, that defendant is categorically ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.91, subdivision (c), which states that section 1170.91 does not apply to a person who has been convicted of an offense requiring registration as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (c)). As we will explain, because the recent amendments to section 1170.91 are only a partial repeal of an existing statutory right or remedy, we conclude that we must apply the current version of the statute, which renders defendant ineligible for relief. We will affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND In 1993, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (a)), two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), three counts of forcible oral copulation (former § 288a, subd. (c)), five counts of forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)), one count of first degree burglary (§ 459), and one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true all allegations, including the use of a deadly weapon enhancement (§§ 12022, subd. (b), 12022.3, subd. (a)). Before defendant’s sentencing hearing, which was held on February 18, 1994, defendant filed a statement in mitigation, which discussed his military service from when he was 17 years old in 1985 through 1992. Defendant also participated in a psychological evaluation, in which he reported “sexual acting out,” “excessive masturbation,” and exposure to pornography and molestation several times at a very early age. Defendant reported that he engaged in sexual conduct with his half sister and was arrested when he was 14 years old for sexual conduct with an eight-year-old female. According to the report, defendant also excessively abused diet pills and alcohol by the time he was 14 years old, and suffered “[r]epeated violent physical abuse” by his stepfather. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 98 years.