People v. Santoyo CA2/6

Discussion Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it rejected the Secretary’s recall recommendation without providing appellant notice or the opportunity to submit additional information relevant to the recommendation.

3 Former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) was originally enacted as “‘an exception to the common law rule that the court loses resentencing jurisdiction once execution of sentence has begun.’” (McCallum, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 210, quoting Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 455 (Dix).) Among other things, it was intended to provide a mechanism for recalling a defendant’s sentence and resentencing him “‘at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary’” or other specified parties. (McCallum, at p. 210.) “In deciding whether to recall a sentence under [former] section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), the trial court may exercise its authority ‘for any reason rationally related to lawful sentencing.’” (McCallum, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 210, quoting Dix, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 456.) We review the trial court’s decision not to recall an inmate’s sentence for abuse of discretion. (McCallum, at p. 211.) Former section 1170,…