Pixley

People v. Pixley

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 4, 2022E075758California1,648 words

Opinion

Opinion

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In 2005, pursuant to a plea bargain, petitioner pleaded guilty to six counts of a

forcible lewd act on a child under 14. (§ 288, subd. (b).) In exchange, the prosecution

dismissed 12 counts of a nonforcible lewd act on a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) as

well as a multiple victim sentencing allegation (former § 667.61, subd. (e)(5), Stats.

1998, ch. 936, § 9, pp. 6874-6876; see now § 667.61, subd. (e)(4)).

This and all further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

2 The plea bargain provided for a sentence of 36 years in prison (the midterm of six

years on each count, run consecutively). The trial court sentenced petitioner accordingly.

Section 1170.91 went into effect on January 1, 2019. (Stats. 2018, ch. 523, § 1,

p. 3830.) Later in 2019, petitioner filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section

1170.91. He alleged that he had served in the United States Navy and that he suffered

from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse as a result.

In 2020, the trial court denied the petition. It ruled that petitioner was not entitled

to resentencing because he had entered into a plea bargain that included a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.