People v. Bernal CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 12, 2023B318591California1,122 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

1. Relevant law Prior to January 1, 2022, “[f]ormer section 1170[, subdivision] (d)(1) authorized a trial court, at any time upon the recommendation of the Secretary [of the CDCR], to ‘recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.’ ” (People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040 (McMurray).) When the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1540 and moved the recall and resentencing provisions from section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) to section 1170.03, it retained the recall and resentencing language and added guidelines and procedures to be followed when the Secretary of the CDCR or other specified public official recommends recall and resentencing. (McMurray, at pp. 1040– 1041.) Assembly Bill No. 200, which took effect June 30, 2022, renumbered section 1170.03 as section 1172.1, but made no substantive changes to the recall and resentencing provisions. (People v. Salgado (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 376, 378, fn. 2 (Salgado); see Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 9.) Assembly Bill No. 1540 added several…

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.