People v. Gleghorn CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the trial court misapplied section 1172.1 when it declined to recall his sentence without evidence that he poses a current and unreasonable risk of committing a “super strike” offense. We disagree. A trial court has the discretion to recall the sentence of a defendant committed to state prison and resentence them upon receiving a recommendation from CDCR. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) A CDCR recommendation creates “a presumption favoring recall and resentencing of the defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (b)(2).) A defendant meets this standard if there is “an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of [section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)].” (§ 1170.18, subd. (c).) “The cited subdivision of section 667 identifies eight types of particularly serious or violent felonies, known colloquially as ‘super strikes.’” (People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 351.) This includes “[a]ny homicide offense [as] defined in Sections 187 to 191.5.” (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv)(IV).) We review this decision for…