may consider postconviction factors in California

2025(People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870 , 874; People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848 , 855-856.) But in “reviewing matters of statutory interpretation . . . we review the trial court’s decision de novo.” (People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312 , 323; see People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791 , 804 [“‘The 8 interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo.’”].) B.

2025(People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359 , 366, review granted Aug. 13, 2025, S291628; People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848 , 855-856.) However, where the appeal from a resentencing order “raises questions of law, our review is de novo.” (Mathis, at p. 366; see People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791 , 804 [“‘The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo.’”].) B.

2021The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the inmate’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the inmate’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the inmate’s original sentencing so that the inmate’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.” (Ibid.) Section 1170, subdivision (d) “is an exception to the common law rule that the court loses resentencing

2021After affording the victim the right to attend sentencing proceedings and express his or her views (§ 1191.1), the court may then impose any new sentence that would be permissible under the Determinate Sentencing Act if the resentence were the original sentence.” (Dix, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 463 .) “The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the inmate’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the inmate’s risk for future viole

2026(Id., subd. (c); see People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 , 1067, fn. 3 [“where § 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing”]; People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393 , 402.) 10 Resentencing under section 1172.75 “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed . . . unless the court finds . . . that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) When resentencing a defendant, the court must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial disc

2026(Id., subd. (c); see People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 , 1067, fn. 3 [“where § 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing”]; People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393 , 402.) 10 Resentencing under section 1172.75 “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed . . . unless the court finds . . . that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) When resentencing a defendant, the court must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial disc

2026(Id., subd. (c); see People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 , 1067, fn. 3 [“where § 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing”]; People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393 , 402.) 10 Resentencing under section 1172.75 “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed . . . unless the court finds . . . that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) When resentencing a defendant, the court must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial disc

2026(Id., subd. (c); see People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 , 1067, fn. 3 [“where § 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing”]; People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393 , 402.) 10 Resentencing under section 1172.75 “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed . . . unless the court finds . . . that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) When resentencing a defendant, the court must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial disc

2026(Id., subd. (c); see People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 , 1067, fn. 3 [“where § 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing”]; People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393 , 402.) 10 Resentencing under section 1172.75 “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed . . . unless the court finds . . . that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) When resentencing a defendant, the court must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial disc

2026(Id., subd. (c); see People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 , 1067, fn. 3 [“where § 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing”]; People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393 , 402.) 10 Resentencing under section 1172.75 “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed . . . unless the court finds . . . that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) When resentencing a defendant, the court must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial disc

2021(People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1165 (Loper), citing Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 460 (Dix).) The CDCR recommendation furnishes the court with jurisdiction it would not otherwise have to recall and resentence.

2021The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the inmate’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the inmate’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the inmate’s original sentencing so that the inmate’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 36, § 17; McCallum, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 210.) The denial of a CDCR recommendation to

2025“The court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” (Id., subd. (d)(2).) “The court may consider postconviction factors, 5 The parties seemingly accept defendant was identified by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 11. including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and

2025Standard of Review Section 1172.75, subdivision (d) “vests the superior court with broad discretion based on an inherently factual inquiry.” (People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848 , 856–857.) “[W]e review for an abuse of discretion a superior court’s decision under section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(1), that reduction of a defendant’s sentence would endanger public safety.” (Id. at p. 856.) “‘“[T]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed

2026Defendant does not challenge the trial court’s further reliance on his assaults on other inmates while imprisoned. (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(3) [“The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated”].) We believe this evidence suffices to uphold the trial court’s discretionary determination that the mitigating factors had been “‘neutralize[d] . . . such that dismissal of the enhancement[s] [wa]s not in furtherance of justice.’ [Citation.]”10 (Walker, supra, at 1029.) 10 Nothing we say

2025Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(2).) “The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the orig

2025After the superior court verifies a judgment includes an invalid enhancement, the court must “recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) Section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(2), provides the court must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” ““‘By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly ‘invalid’ enhancements.’

2025After the superior court verifies a judgment includes an invalid enhancement, the court must “recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) Section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(2), provides the court must “apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” ““‘By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly ‘invalid’ enhancements.’

2021The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the inmate’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the inmate’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the inmate’s original sentencing so that the inmate’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.” (Ibid.) Section 1170, subdivision (d) “is an exception to the common law rule that the court loses resentencing

2021The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the inmate's disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the inmate’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the inmate’s original sentencing so that the inmate’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.” (§ 1170, subd. (d)(1).) “An order declining to follow the Secretary’s recommendation pursuant to section 1170,

2025Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. [¶] (2) The court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing. [¶] (3) The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished p

2025(People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343 , 351.) Accordingly, a trial court now has “discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence.” (Id. at p. 379.) B.

2026Section 1385, subdivision (a) “[A] judge or magistrate may, either on motion of the court or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed.” (§ 1385, subd. (a).) Under this provision, “a trial court may exercise this power to dismiss allegations or findings that a defendant has previously been convicted of a serious and/or violent felony that would otherwise count as a ‘strike’ under the ‘Three Strikes’ law.” (People v. Dain (2025) 18 Cal.5th 246 , 252, citing Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529-531.) 7 The parties do not disp

2026Section 1385, subdivision (a) “[A] judge or magistrate may, either on motion of the court or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed.” (§ 1385, subd. (a).) Under this provision, “a trial court may exercise this power to dismiss allegations or findings that a defendant has previously been convicted of a serious and/or violent felony that would otherwise count as a ‘strike’ under the ‘Three Strikes’ law.” (People v. Dain (2025) 18 Cal.5th 246 , 252, citing Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529-531.) 7 The parties do not disp

2026Section 1385, subdivision (a) “[A] judge or magistrate may, either on motion of the court or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed.” (§ 1385, subd. (a).) Under this provision, “a trial court may exercise this power to dismiss allegations or findings that a defendant has previously been convicted of a serious and/or violent felony that would otherwise count as a ‘strike’ under the ‘Three Strikes’ law.” (People v. Dain (2025) 18 Cal.5th 246 , 252, citing Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529-531.) 7 The parties do not disp

2026Section 1385, subdivision (a) “[A] judge or magistrate may, either on motion of the court or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed.” (§ 1385, subd. (a).) Under this provision, “a trial court may exercise this power to dismiss allegations or findings that a defendant has previously been convicted of a serious and/or violent felony that would otherwise count as a ‘strike’ under the ‘Three Strikes’ law.” (People v. Dain (2025) 18 Cal.5th 246 , 252, citing Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529-531.) 7 The parties do not disp

2025“The court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” (Id., subd. (d)(2).) “The court may consider postconviction factors, 5 The parties seemingly accept defendant was identified by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 11. including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and

2025(People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 .) This means we will affirm as long as the court exercised its sentencing discretion “in a manner that is not arbitrary and capricious, that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the law, and that is based upon an ‘individualized consideration of the offense, the offender, and the public interest.’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “[T]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legiti

2025Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. “[(d)](2) The court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for 9. judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing. “[(d)](3) The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and dimin