People v. Wekerle CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Court Erred by Resentencing Wekerle in His Absence Wekerle contends, and the People concede, that the trial court prejudicially erred by resentencing him in his absence because he had the constitutional right to be present at the hearing and did not waive that right.

3 A After part of a sentence is stricken on appeal, the trial court must resentence the defendant on the entire sentence and not just its infirm part and that a resentencing hearing is a critical stage of the criminal proceedings against the defendant. (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893; People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681; People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 347–348 (Cutting).) Accordingly, a defendant has the constitutional right to be present at a resentencing hearing. (U.S. Const., 6th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15; Cutting, at pp. 347–348; People v. Quan (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 524, 532–534 (Quan).) A defendant can waive that right if the waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. (Quan, at pp. 534– 535; People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46, 57.) B As the parties note, the record does not show that Wekerle waived his right to be present at his…