People v. Loza CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD276263
- Trial judge
- David M. Gill
- Outcome
- vacated — Sentence vacated and case remand with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court struck a prison prior on remand but denied the defendant's request to reduce punitive fines, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to revisit them. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the prior remand vacated the sentence and granted the trial court jurisdiction to review all components, including fines, on the new remand.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's denial of the defense request to revisit punitive fines based on a lack of jurisdiction.“We find the parties have correctly determined the trial court had jurisdiction to revisit the punitive fines.” | unclear | error | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Rosas (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 107 — A trial court has jurisdiction to consider and reduce punitive fines on remand for resentencing, even if the challenge was forfeited in the original appeal, because the appellate court's vacatur allows review of all interlocking parts of the sentence.
- relied: People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250 — Supports the principle that a trial court has jurisdiction to address sentencing components on remand.
- relied: People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 — Established the legal framework for challenging fines and fees, which was the basis for the defendant's original appeal and subsequent motion.
The appellate opinion: sound — sound
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOn remand after a prior appeal vacated the sentence and directed the trial court to strike a Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison prior and resentence as appropriate, the trial court struck the prior but refused to consider the defendant's Duenas-based request to revisit the punitive fines, reasoning the remand deprived it of jurisdiction to do so. The Court of Appeal, accepting the Attorney General's concession, held the trial court had jurisdiction on a full resentencing to reconsider all interlocking parts of the sentence including fines, vacated the sentence again, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing without expressing a view on whether the fines should be modified.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's determination on remand that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the punitive fines (restitution fines, fees, and assessments) when resentencing after striking the prison prior“The court declined, reasoning this court’s remand deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to revisit the punitive fines.” | unclear | error (law misapplied) | agree with court The scope of a trial court's authority on remand is a question of law. The prior remittitur vacated the entire sentence and directed resentencing 'as appropriate' without limiting the court's authority; under Rosas and Burbine, once a sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing the trial court may reconsider all components of the aggregate sentence, including punitive fines, even if a fines challenge was forfeited on the original appeal. The Attorney General conceded the point. The court's conclusion is consistent with the full-resentencing rule and with its own remand order, and it properly left the merits of any fine reduction to the trial court. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Rosas (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 107 — When an appellate court vacates a sentence and remands for resentencing, the trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider all interlocking parts of the sentence, including reduction of punitive restitution fines, even though a challenge to the fines was forfeited in the original appeal.
- relied: People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250 — On remand for resentencing after part of a sentence is set aside, the trial court may reconsider the entire sentencing scheme and restructure the aggregate sentence.
- relied: People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 — Due process requires an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing certain fines, fees, and assessments; this was the basis of the defendant's request to revisit the fines on remand.
- missed: People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857 — The full resentencing rule: when part of a sentence is stricken on review, a full resentencing as to all counts and components is appropriate so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances; binding Supreme Court authority directly supporting the result the court reached through Court of Appeal decisions only.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly held that its earlier unrestricted remand for resentencing vested the trial court with authority to reconsider every component of the sentence, including fines, and Rosas and Burbine squarely support that conclusion, which the Attorney General conceded. The opinion is very brief, does not state a standard of review, and does not cite the Supreme Court's controlling full-resentencing decision in Buycks, though the omission does not affect the correctness of the result.
Opinion
Filed 5/24/21 P. v. Loza CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D078323
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD276263)
ALEJANDRO LOZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Sentence vacated and case remand with directions. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2018, a jury found Alejandro Loza guilty of four counts of felony vandalism (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subds. (a)(b)(1) & (a)(b)(2)(A)). The jury found a gang allegation true. Loza admitted a prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Loza was sentenced to a six-year term, the court also imposed various fines, fees, and assessments. Loza appealed raising only a challenge to the various fines and fees in light of People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Duenas). During the pendency of the appeal, Senate Bill No. 136 passed invalidating prison priors such as that involved in this case. In case No. D075287, we affirmed the conviction, found the Duenas issue had been forfeited, but found Loza was entitled to have the prison prior stricken and to be resentenced. This court vacated the sentence and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to strike the prison prior and resentence as appropriate. (See People v. Loza (Dec. 13, 2019, D075287) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the court struck the prior but denied the defense request to resentence with regard to the fines. The court declined, reasoning this court’s remand deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to revisit the punitive fines. Loza appeals contending the court erred in its belief it could not revisit the Duenas issues. The Attorney General, relying principally on People v. Rosas (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 107 (Rosas), concedes the trial court erred and the case should be remanded for a further resentencing hearing with directions to the trial court to hear the defense request to revisit the punitive fines and to make such decision as the court deems appropriate on the merits of such motion. We agree with the parties. Our remand vacated the existing sentence and directed the court to resentence as “appropriate.” Our remand did not 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 limit the court’s ability to review the sentence anew in light of striking the prison prior. We will again remand with directions.2 DISCUSSION In Rosas, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th 107, the court addressed the authority of a trial judge to consider restitution fines on remand for resentencing. The court held that even though the challenge to punitive fines was forfeited in the original appeal, where the appellate court has vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, the trial court can consider all of the interlocking parts of the sentence. (Id. at pp. 109-113.) The court held the trial court had jurisdiction to reduce punitive fines on remand for resentencing. (Id. at p. 117; see also People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1257.) We agree with the analysis in Rosas as it applies to this case. When the prior was struck, it changed the nature of the entire sentence. Thus, the court had authority to reduce the punitive fines, should it deem such action appropriate as part of restructuring the total sentence following remand. We find the parties have correctly determined the trial court had jurisdiction to revisit the punitive fines. Accordingly, we will again remand the case for a further sentencing hearing. We express no opinion on whether the court should modify any of the fines.
2 The facts of the offenses are not relevant to any issue on this appeal. We will omit the traditional statement of facts. 3 DISPOSITION The sentence is vacated. The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to conduct a new sentencing hearing in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Rosas No. G043158 · 2010-12-21
- People v. Burbine A096825 · 2003-03-12