People v. Gonzalez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D078126 · 2021-06-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF1402485
Trial judge: Dale R. Wells
Outcome: vacated — The sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court with directions to resentence Gonzalez consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:07Z · confidence high

The trial court failed to formally resentence the defendant after a remand, instead only amending the abstract of judgment and recalculating custody credits. The Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded the case with directions to properly resentence, strike the prison prior enhancement under Senate Bill 136, and amend the abstract of judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Failure to formally resentence the defendant after remand “The trial court’s failure to actually resentence Gonzalez was error and resulted in an unauthorized sentence. (People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1327.)”	de novo	error (procedure)	agree with court agree with court
Application of Senate Bill 136 to invalidate the one-year prison prior enhancement “Gonzalez contends he is entitled to the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 136, which invalidated the one-year enhancements for prison priors such as is applicable in this case. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 306-308.)”	de novo	error (statutory interpretation)	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293 — A trial court's failure to actually resentence a defendant results in an unauthorized sentence.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 — Senate Bill 136 invalidates one-year enhancements for prison priors and applies retroactively to cases on direct appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that the trial court's failure to impose a formal sentence constitutes an unauthorized sentence under established precedent. It also correctly applies the retroactive effect of Senate Bill 136 as interpreted in Lara to strike the prison prior enhancement.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

After a prior remand, the Riverside County Superior Court retried a strike prior, found it true, amended the abstract of judgment and recalculated custody credits, but never formally resentenced Gonzalez on his vehicle theft, evading, and street terrorism convictions with prior-conviction enhancements. The Court of Appeal, accepting the Attorney General's concessions, held the failure to resentence produced an unauthorized sentence, vacated the sentence, and remanded with directions to resentence, strike the one-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison prior under Senate Bill No. 136, recalculate credits, and issue an amended abstract.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Trial court's failure to formally resentence Gonzalez on remand, instead only amending the abstract of judgment and recalculating credits “The trial court’s failure to actually resentence Gonzalez was error and resulted in an unauthorized sentence.”	de novo	error (procedure)	agree with court The prior appellate opinion vacated the sentence and directed resentencing; once a sentence is vacated there is no operative sentence until the court pronounces one, so merely amending the abstract left no lawful judgment in place. Whether a sentence is unauthorized is a question of law, and the conclusion is consistent with the cited Crabtree authority and with the general rule that a remand for resentencing requires a new sentencing hearing.
Calculation of custody credits on remand “that the custody credits were improperly calculated”	unclear	error (other)	unsure Both parties agreed the credits were miscalculated and the court accepted the concession, but the opinion states no figures and gives no explanation of the error, so the reader cannot independently verify the result. Directing recalculation at a full resentencing is nonetheless the proper remedy regardless of the specifics.
Retention of the one-year prison prior enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) after Senate Bill No. 136 “The Attorney General properly concedes the new legislation must apply in this case.”	de novo	error (statutory interpretation)	agree with court Senate Bill No. 136 limited section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements to prior sexually violent offenses, and under Estrada as applied in Lara an ameliorative statute applies to all judgments not yet final on its effective date. Because the sentence had been vacated and the case was still on direct appeal, the judgment was not final and the enhancement must be stricken; the court's conclusion is correct though it cites only Lara and does not expressly discuss finality.
Content of the abstract of judgment “The abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the newly imposed sentence.”	de novo	error (procedure)	agree with court The abstract must reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment; since no sentence was pronounced on remand and the prison prior must be stricken, the existing abstract necessarily does not match the sentence that will be imposed. Ordering an amended abstract follows directly from the resentencing order.

Authorities

relied: People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293 — A trial court's failure to properly impose sentence results in an unauthorized sentence that may be corrected on appeal and requires remand for resentencing.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 — Under the Estrada rule, ameliorative legislation applies retroactively to all cases not yet final on the statute's effective date absent a contrary legislative intent.
missed: In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 — When the Legislature reduces punishment for an offense without a saving clause, the amendment is presumed to apply to every case in which the judgment is not yet final; this is the foundational authority for retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 136 that the court invoked only indirectly through Lara.
missed: People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337 — Senate Bill No. 136's amendment to section 667.5, subdivision (b) applies retroactively to defendants whose judgments were not final on January 1, 2020, and the enhancement must be stricken.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches the correct result on all four conceded points and supports the core holding with apt authority on unauthorized sentences and Estrada retroactivity. It is, however, cursory: it does not explain why the judgment was nonfinal, does not cite Estrada or any of the published decisions applying Senate Bill No. 136, and gives no detail about the custody credit error it directs the trial court to fix.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/11/21 P. v. Gonzalez 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, D078126

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. INF1402485)

CHRISTOPHER GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Dale R. Wells, Judge, and Randall D. White, retired judge of Riverside Superior Court (assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.). Sentence vacated and the case remanded for resentencing with directions. Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Christopher Gonzalez was convicted by a jury of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), evading police (Veh. Code, § 2800.2), and street terrorism (Pen. Code,1 § 186.22, subd. (a)). The trial court found true two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and one prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Gonzalez was sentenced to a term of 25 years-to-life plus a 15-year determinate term. Gonzalez appealed, and this court affirmed the convictions but reversed the true finding on one of the strike priors. This court vacated the sentence and remanded to permit a retrial on the strike prior, to permit Gonzalez to move to strike the serious felony priors, and to resentence Gonzalez accordingly. (People v. Gonzalez (June 10, 2019, D075363) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court retried the strike prior and found it true. Thereafter the court did not formally resentence Gonzalez, although the court amended the abstract of judgment and recalculated custody credits. Gonzalez again appealed. Gonzalez contends, and the Attorney General agrees, that the court erred in failing to formally resentence; that the custody credits were improperly calculated; that the abstract of judgment should be amended and that he is entitled to the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 136 to invalidate the one-year prison prior. After reviewing the record, we agree with the parties. The case must again be remanded for proper sentencing.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 DISCUSSION The trial court’s failure to actually resentence Gonzalez was error and resulted in an unauthorized sentence. (People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1327.) On remand, the trial court must address the striking of the prison prior, the recalculation of custody credits, and it must impose a sentence in the case. The abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the newly imposed sentence. Gonzalez contends he is entitled to the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 136, which invalidated the one-year enhancements for prison priors such as is applicable in this case. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 306-308.) The Attorney General properly concedes the new legislation must apply in this case. On remand the trial court is directed to strike the one-year term under section 667.5, subdivision (b) and to modify the sentence accordingly. DISPOSITION The sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court with directions to resentence Gonzalez consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. The court shall amend the abstract of judgment as 3 appropriate and forward an amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty. S241231 · 2018-02-01
People v. Crabtree B192743 · 2009-01-07