DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot
27,361 rulings indexed. Last ingest about 1 hour ago .
Data refreshes about every 15 minutes during California business hours.
DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot dev · 2026-07-08 01:03 UTC Admin
People v. Tilei CA4/2 (2024) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal People v. Tilei CA4/2 Unpublished Filed 6/13/24 P. v. Tilei CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E080863
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF080733)
PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Reversed with directions.
Martin Kassman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting, Kristen
Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Punaofo Tsugito Tilei appeals from the trial court’s order
which, after denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6, gave
him only a partial resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483. Defendant additionally argues
that the trial court erroneously failed to recalculate defendant’s credits for actual custody.
More from California Court of Appeal Source: opinion data from the Free Law Project / CourtListener (public-domain court records). DecisionDepot is for informational use only and is not legal advice — verify against the official reporter before relying on any text or AI-generated summary.
The People agree with both contentions. For the reasons set forth post, we reverse the
court’s order and remand the case for a full resentencing hearing along with a
recalculation of defendant’s actual custody credits.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. FACTUAL HISTORY In 1998, Deputy James Erickson was dispatched to investigate a report of shots
fired. When Deputy Erickson arrived at the location, defendant fired multiple rounds of
ammunition at him, striking him in the left index finger. (People v. Tilei (July 19, 2000,
E023430) [nonpub. opn.].)
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 16, 1998, defendant was charged with the attempted murder of Deputy
James Erickson under sections 664 and 187, with a special allegation that defendant
personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and caused great bodily injury to
Deputy Erickson under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) (count 1); assault with a firearm
on a peace officer under section 245, subdivision (d)(1), with a special allegation that
defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on Deputy Erickson under section
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
12022.7 subdivision (a) (count 2); and possession of a firearm by a felon under former
section 12021, subdivision (a) (count 3). The information further alleged defendant had
two prior prison terms under section 667.5 subdivision (b).
A jury convicted defendant on all three counts and found true both allegations.
On September 1, 1998, defendant admitted the two prior prison terms.
On the same day, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with the
possibility of parole and a consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement on
count 1; an upper term of eight years, plus three years for the great bodily injury
enhancement, stayed pursuant to section 654 on count 2; an upper term of three years,
stayed pursuant to section 654 on count 3; and two years consecutive to the sentence on
count 1 for the prison priors. The total sentence was two years plus 25 years to life plus
On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment.
On March 16, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former
On February 10, 2023, the trial court denied defendant’s petition for resentencing.
In the same hearing the court dismissed defendant’s two prison priors and denied
defendant’s request to strike the firearm enhancement without prejudice.
On February 14, 2023, the trial court filed a second amended abstract of judgment
containing the same amount of custody credits as the abstract of judgment filed on
On March 9, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
A. HAVING STRUCK THE PRIOR PRISON TERM ENHANCEMENTS,
THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A FULL
RESENTENCING UNDER SECTION 1172.75 Defendant contends the trial court had a duty to exercise its discretion as to
whether to dismiss the firearm discharge enhancement. The People agree.
On March 16, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former
section 1170.95. On February 10, 2023, the trial court held a hearing, denying
defendant’s petition. After the denial, defendant’s counsel inquired about other details of
defendant’s sentence. Counsel asked the court to strike the two prison priors, which it
did, under section 1172.75. Counsel then asked the court to use its discretion and
reconsider the gun enhancements, which it did not, believing it lacked jurisdiction to do
However, having stricken defendant’s two prison priors under section 1172.75, the
court was required to apply section 1172.75 subdivision (d)(2), as well, and exercise its
discretion as to whether to dismiss the firearm enhancements. Section 1172.75
subdivision (d)(2) requires the court to “apply any other changes in law that reduce
sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to
promote uniformity of sentencing.” This includes the changes in law made by Senate
Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2018.)
which grants “trial courts the discretion to strike firearm enhancements imposed under
section 12022.53.” (People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 396.)
In People v. Monroe, supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at page 398, “the trial court granted
[defendant] relief under Senate Bill No. 483 but held he was not eligible to be considered
for relief under Senate Bill No. 620.” There, the Attorney General conceded that the trial
court had “erred in denying relief under Senate Bill No. 620 because it was already
resentencing [defendant] pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483.” (Id. at p. 400.) “By its plain
terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike
the newly ‘invalid’ enhancements.” (Id. at p. 402.) However, this is precisely what
happened here: the trial court struck the newly invalid prior prison term enhancements
but did not perform a full resentencing. As such, the matter is remanded for a full
resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 subdivision (d)(2).
B THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO UPDATE
DEFENDANT’S ACTUAL CUSTODY CREDITS Defendant contends the trial court neglected to update defendant’s actual custody
credits, as was required as part of resentencing. The People agree.
In defendant’s original abstract of judgment, filed on December 14, 1998, the
court awarded him 125 days of credits—109 actual days and 16 conduct credits. After
resentencing appellant on February 14, 2023, the court failed to update defendant’s actual
custody credits to reflect the days he had served in state custody after his sentencing in
1998. The second amended abstract of judgment has the same credits as the first: 109
actual and 16 local conduct credits, for a total of 125 credits.
“Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment
based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is
modified during the term of imprisonment, such time shall be credited upon any
subsequent sentence he may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or
acts.” (§ 2900.1.) Accordingly, “the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on
remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days
he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time.” (People v. Buckhalter
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37.) Upon remand, therefore, the trial court must recalculate
defendant’s actual custody credits and prepare a new abstract of judgment.
DISPOSITION Defendant’s sentence is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for a
full resentencing hearing. The trial court is further directed to make a determination and
award any custody credits to which defendant is entitled. Following resentencing, the
trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract and forward a certified copy to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
RAMIREZ P. J.
CODRINGTON J.