Resentencing and the Public Safety Exception (PC 1385)

Over the last five years, there have been many new laws passed that allow a sentencing court to strike certain enhancements (i.e., Senate Bill No. 1393), mandate that certain enhancements be stricken (i.e., Penal Code § 667.5(b) enhancements through Senate Bill No. 483 and Senate Bill No. 136), allow the court to consider “childhood trauma” (Senate Bill No. 567) and give courts discretion in choosing between enhancements (Senate Bill No. 518). 

In particular, Senate Bill (SB) No. 1393 amended Penal Code § 1385 to give trial courts discretion to strike sentence enhancements in the interest of justice.  The law permits a judge to refuse to dismiss an enhancement where doing so would endanger public safety.  Penal Code § 1385(c)(2).  The Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, in considering Senate Bill (SB) No. 81 in 2021, recommended that the presumptions in favor of striking a sentence “can be overcome if there is ‘clear and convincing evidence that [the] dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.”

Wally Renteria was charged with more than 20 other defendants in an 86-count indictment in Santa Clara County Superior Court concerning a criminal street gang in Gilroy, California. 

Before trial, Mr. Renteria pleaded guilty to one count of actively participating in a criminal street gang and another count of offering to sell a controlled substance.  He then went to trial and the jury convicted him of sixteen more counts involving the sale of drugs, assault, and the use of firearms. 

The jury also found true that Mr. Renteria suffered a prior serious felony conviction and convictions resulting in prior prison terms, generating several more enhancements.

The trial court judge, Daniel Nishigaya, sentenced Mr. Renteria to 34 years in prison.

Mr. Renteria then appealed both his convictions and his sentences to the California Court of Appeal to the Sixth District.  The Sixth District then struck his prior prison term enhancements (Penal Code § 667.5(b)) under SB 136 although it was imposed but stayed by Judge Nishigaya.  The Sixth District also vacated the previously mandatory five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony in light of SB 1393 and remanded the case for the judge to consider striking the five year enhancement.

On remand, Judge Nishigaya cited public safety concerns, given Mr. Renteria’s extensive criminal history, and declined to strike the five-year prior serious felony conviction.  Mr. Renteria’s new sentence remained 34 years.

Mr. Renteria then appealed again to the Sixth District, arguing that he was entitled to “full resentencing” based on the original remand order and, in particular, that Judge Nishigaya erred in not striking all enhancements that resulted in a prison term totaling more than 20 years.

This argument, given the many convictions Mr. Renteria suffered, both past and in this case, as well as the types of convictions, made his argument extremely interesting to the Sixth District and Greg Hill & Associates, too. 

The Sixth District responded with both sarcasm and measured firmness. 

It first explained that the one-year prison prior enhancements were not imposed, as they were stayed in the original sentence, so “full resentencing” was not mandatory based on the provisions  of SB 483 and SB 136 since striking these enhancements did not result in any shorter sentence.  People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1118, 1125.

The court then turned to Judge Nishigaya’s most important ruling, that public safety concerns allowed him to refuse to strike the five-year prior serious felony convictions.  The Sixth District affirmed Judge Nishigaya on this ruling, noting that while such enhancements did result in a sentence of more than 20 years, the interests of justice weighed against striking it, noting, in particular, the recency of the conviction in question, the involvement of large quantities of narcotics, Mr. Renteria’s willingness to use violence, and his use of a minor in narcotics-related activity.

The Sixth District pointed out that Mr. Renteria’s interpretation of the new sentencing laws would create an implied repeal of any enhancement that was 20 years or more.  For example, discharging a firearm during a murder, robbery, or rape, by themselves increase sentences by 20 years or more. Penal Code § 12022(c) (20 years for intentional discharge), 12022(d) (25 years where great bodily injury caused).  Under Mr. Renteria’s interpretation, these enhancements could never be imposed.  The California Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished, however, that “[a]ll presumptions are against a repeal by implication.”  State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 940, 955.

Moreover, Mr. Renteria’s interpretation would require courts to endanger public safety when multiple enhancements are alleged in a sentencing enhancement over 20 years.  As the Fourth District observed, “[t]hat cannot be what the Legislature intended.”  People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 287, 296.