People v. Geebroomfield CA4/2 (2024) · DecisionDepot
People v. Geebroomfield CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Mar 8, 2024 No. E082641Unpublished
Filed 3/8/24 P. v. Geebroomfield CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082641
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF1701131)
DARRION GEEBROOMFIELD, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Francisco Navarro, Judge
Affirmed.
Darrion Geebroomfield, in pro. per.; Arielle Bases, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Darrion Geebroomfield appeals from the trial court’s
order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 former section
1171.1 (now renumbered section 1172.75). For the reasons set forth post, we affirm the
trial court’s order.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 2, 2017, an information charged defendant with corporal injury on a
spouse or cohabitant under section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1) (count 1); assault likely to
In this case, the trial court imposed an enhancement under section 12022.7,
subdivision (e), not section 667.5. Hence, defendant’s sentence does not include any
enhancements imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Moreover, nothing in
section 1172.75 allows a trial court to go back and consider defendant’s mitigating
circumstances to resentence defendant, as argued by defendant in his personal brief.
Based on the above and our independent review of the record, we find that the trial
court correctly determined defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.75.
(Delgadillo, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 233.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying defendant’s section 1172.75 petition for
resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
2 Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5, subdivision (b)b required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation that a defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. (§ 667.5, former subd. (b).) Effective January 1, 2020, however, the statute was amended to limit its prior prison term enhancement to only prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses as defined in Welfare and institutions Code section 6600. (See People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 681.)
5
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 because his sentence did not include an enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Issues
Whether the defendant is eligible for recall of his sentence and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“In this case, the trial court imposed an enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (e), not section 667.5. Hence, defendant’s sentence does not include any enhancements imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b).”
“we find that the trial court correctly determined defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.75.”