People v. Vasquez CA4/3

DISCUSSION

I.

FIREARM ENHANCEMENT

Appellant contends the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to strike his firearm enhancement under section 1385. In his view, striking was required under the plain wording of section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(C). However, as appellant admits, his position goes against a mountain of case law on the issue, and we see no reason to depart from those decisions. As amended in 2021, section 1385, subdivision (c)(1) mandates the dismissal of a sentencing enhancement if dismissal would further the ends of justice. (See Sen. Bill No. 81, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess., Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1.) But subdivision (c)(2) of the statute makes it clear that the furtherance-of-justice standard is discretionary in nature. It states, “In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of

3 dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public…