People v. Ledon CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 2023D080234California1,739 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

Before sentencing in this case, the Legislature made several changes to the relevant sentencing statutes. The parties agree the trial court was aware of these changes and sought to apply them. But Ledon contends that in various ways the trial court misapplied the statutory revisions in arriving at its sentencing choices. Accordingly, we begin by summarizing the changes.

2 The prior serious felony allegation was based on Ledon’s 2019 conviction on two counts of robbery in San Diego Superior Court case No.

SCD279099.

3 See People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. 3 Prior to 2022, the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) gave trial courts broad discretion to select a lower, middle, or upper term of imprisonment from a specified triad for the particular crime. Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 5) made changes to section 1170 that affected this discretion. Senate Bill No. 567 made the middle term the presumptively appropriate choice in most cases unless there are aggravating factors found by the jury or admitted by the defendant. (§ 1170, subds. (b)(1) and…

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.