People v. Eggers CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD281269
- Trial judge
- Frederic L. Link
- Outcome
- reversed in part — Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to 28 years in prison, including upper term designations, under the pre-amendment version of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b). The Court of Appeal reversed the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing to apply the legislative changes enacted by SB 567 and AB 124.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of upper term sentences under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)“Eggers’s case is not final on appeal, and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of the new changes. (People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 459, 464-465.)” | unclear | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court The appellate court held that because the case was not final on appeal, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the legislative amendments to section 1170, subdivision (b) enacted after sentencing. The court relied on People v. Lopez to support the proposition that these changes apply to cases not yet final. The Attorney General conceded the error, and the court agreed, reversing the sentence for resentencing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 459 — A defendant is entitled to the benefit of legislative changes to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) if the case is not final on appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the rule from People v. Lopez that legislative amendments to sentencing statutes apply to cases not yet final on appeal. The court properly reversed the sentence based on the Attorney General's concession and the clear statutory change.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court sentenced Eggers to a determinate 28-year term that included several upper-term designations after a jury convicted him of carjacking, robbery, assault, vehicle theft, and receiving a stolen vehicle with weapon and great-bodily-injury enhancements. On appeal, with the Attorney General's concession, the Court of Appeal reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing under amended Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), affirming the judgment in all other respects.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of upper-term sentences under former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), prior to the amendments enacted by Senate Bill No. 567 and Assembly Bill No. 124“Eggers’s case is not final on appeal, and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of the new changes. (People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 459, 464-465.)” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court The trial court applied the law in effect at sentencing, so the error is purely retroactivity-based: under the Estrada rule, ameliorative sentencing amendments apply to cases not yet final on appeal, and the parties agreed the amended section 1170(b) applies. The court did not conduct a harmless-error analysis, but given the Attorney General's concession, remand for a full resentencing is a defensible disposition and consistent with how other courts have handled SB 567 claims. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 459 — Amendments to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) by Senate Bill No. 567 are ameliorative and apply retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal.
- missed: In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 — Absent a contrary legislative intent, an amendment that lessens punishment applies to all cases not yet final on appeal; this is the foundational authority for the retroactivity holding the court relied on via Lopez.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches the correct result that amended section 1170(b) applies retroactively to a nonfinal case, relying on Lopez and the Attorney General's concession. It is very brief, does not cite Estrada directly, and does not address whether any error in the upper-term selections could be harmless, instead simply ordering full resentencing.
Opinion
Filed 9/20/22 P. v. Eggers 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, D079196
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD281269)
JOHNATHAN EGGERS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederic L. Link, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Laura P. Gordon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Johnathan Eggers of carjacking (Pen. Code, 1 § 215, subd. (a)); robbery (§ 211); assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)); vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d). The jury also found true allegations that Eggers used a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(2)) and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Eggers admitted a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). He was sentenced to a determinate term of 28 years in prison. Eggers appeals challenging only his sentence. His sentence includes several upper term designations. He contends he is entitled to the benefit of recent legislative changes to section 1170, subdivision (b), limiting the trial court’s ability to impose upper term sentences. The Attorney General properly agrees and concedes the case must be remanded for resentencing. We agree with the parties and will remand for a new sentencing hearing applying the new statutory changes.2 DISCUSSION After the sentencing took place in this case, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021- 2022 Reg. Sess.) modifying section 1170, subdivision (b) by changing the requirements for trial courts regarding selection of upper term sentences.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2 Given the Attorney General's concession and the absence of any challenge to the convictions, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the various offenses.
2 Eggers’s case is not final on appeal, and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of the new changes. (People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 459, 464-465.) DISPOSITION The sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded to the superior court with directions to conduct a new sentencing hearing and to apply the new legislative changes to section 1170, subdivision (b). In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
IRION, J.