People v. Doulphus CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 2022C089263ACalifornia689 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

On transfer from the Supreme Court, defendant maintains the trial court did not understand it had the ability to reduce his firearm enhancement to an uncharged lesser enhancement in lieu of striking it, and thus could not have exercised its informed discretion. The People did not file a brief. We agree with defendant that remand for informed exercise of the trial court’s discretion is appropriate. Section 12022.53 provides for a 10-year enhancement for the personal use of a firearm under subdivision (b); a 20-year enhancement for the personal and intentional discharge of a firearm under subdivision (c); and a 25-year-to-life enhancement for the personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury or death under subdivision (d). Effective January 1, 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), which amended section 12022.53, subdivision (h) to provide: “The court may, in the interests of justice pursuant to Section 1385 and at the time of sentencing, strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by this section.” A trial court’s refusal to dismiss a section 12022.53 enhancement is reviewed under the…

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.