People v. Barron CA2/4

BACKGROUND

As previously noted, the jury convicted Barron of one count of carjacking and two counts of second degree robbery.5 Specifically—and as

In a recent letter to this court, respondent withdrew its request for oral argument and stated that in light of Padilla it was withdrawing its contention that the presumption under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745 (that ameliorative legislation applies to non-final judgments) only applies to non-final judgments but not “reopened” judgments. Respondent further concedes that “AB 124 and AB 333 apply retroactively to [Barron’s] case.”

In light of our conclusion, we need not consider Barron’s alternative contention that he was denied his right to counsel at the resentencing hearing and that the court erred in failing to allow him to present evidence relevant to his unauthorized sentence. (People v. Yanaga (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 619, 625 [noting that “‘when a case is remanded for resentencing after an appeal, the defendant is entitled to “all the normal rights and procedures available at his original sentencing” [citations], including consideration of any pertinent circumstances which have arisen since the prior sentence…