People v. Montelongo CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 19, 2023D080790California1,281 words

Opinion

Opinion

Buchanan, J.

DISCUSSION

I We begin with Montelongo’s contention that dismissal of the 25-years- to-life firearm enhancement was mandatory under section 1385, subdivisions (c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C). “For all criminal sentencings after January 1, 2022, our Legislature in Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1) has provided direction on how trial courts are to exercise their discretion in deciding whether to dismiss sentencing enhancements.” (People v. Walker (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 386, 391 (Walker).) Specifically, section 1385, subdivision (c)(1) now provides that “the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so,” and subdivision (c)(2) states that “[i]n exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence” of nine listed “mitigating circumstances,” any one of which “weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.” Subdivision (c)(3) further provides: “While the court may exercise its discretion at sentencing, this subdivision does not prevent a court from exercising its…

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.