People v. Hall CA4/1

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted David Sidney Backscheider and Constantino Rufus Hall of robbery and simple assault. Each appeals his sentence. Backscheider argues the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a

five-year enhancement under Penal Code1 667, subdivision (a)(1) based on a 2018 serious felony conviction. He claims imposing the serious felony prior is inconsistent with the goal of uniformity in sentencing because the court declined to impose a five-year enhancement in Hall’s sentence based on Hall’s 1993 robbery conviction. He also claims the enhancement is “contrary to the spirit” of section 1385, subdivisions (c)(2)(E) and (H). Backscheider forfeited these arguments and, in any case, has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. Hall argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give great weight to the factors outlined in section 1385, subdivision (c)(2) when declining to dismiss his prior “strike” under the “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d).) He argues the preamble to Assembly Bill No. 600 (Stats. 2023, ch. 446, § 1 (Assembly Bill 600)—which concerns sentence recall proceedings under section 1172.1—requires…