People v. Sinegal CA2/5

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying CDCR’s recommendation without appointing him counsel or holding a hearing. Consistent with the People’s concession, we also conclude the court erred. Upon CDCR recommending recall and resentencing, section

3 1172.1 obligates the court to notify defendant of the recommendation (§ 1172.1, subd. (b)(1)), appoint counsel (ibid.), set a status conference (ibid.), conduct a hearing absent a stipulation to the contrary (id., subds. (a)(8)(A) & (a)(9)), presume that relief shall be granted unless “the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” (id., subd. (b)(2)), and issue an order explaining the reasons for its decision (id., subd. (a)(7)). In summarily denying CDCR’s recommendation in this case, the trial court took none of these steps. Because the court did not adhere to the requirements of section 1172.1, we must reverse and remand for the court to do so. (E.g., People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040- 1041.)

DISPOSITION

The court’s order summarily denying CDCR’s recommendation is reversed, and the matter is remanded for proceedings in accordance with section…