People v. Banuelos CA3

facts for our analysis or disposition here. (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).)

2 defendant’s positive participation in rehabilitative programming; lack of serious disciplinary history in the preceding six years; 45 laudatory achievements and programming accomplishments, noteworthy educational performance; and positive impact with youth offenders. “In response to the CDCR’s recommendation, the court gave notice to defendant, appointed counsel, permitted briefing from the parties; and heard argument. . . . [¶] . . . Consequently, the trial court decided that recalling Banuelos’ sentence would not be in the interest of justice.” (People v. Banuelos, supra, C094509.) Banuelos appealed, and on November 21, 2022, this court remanded the case to the superior court for reconsideration in light of recently enacted legislation that clarified procedures when the CDCR recommends recall and resentencing. Following remand, the trial court asked both parties to prepare briefing on the issue and submit any evidence they deemed appropriate. In a brief filed in support of the Secretary’s request to recall Banuelos’ sentence, Banuelos’ counsel argued that there was no evidence to suggest that he would…