People v. Cepeda
Annotate this Case
In 2018, defendant pleaded guilty to carjacking as a second strike, and admitted he sustained a prior serious felony conviction. In 2020, the secretary of the CDCR sent a letter to the trial court invoking the sentence recall provision of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). The trial court recalled defendant's sentence and held a resentencing hearing under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), declining to strike defendant's enhancement.
The Court of Appeal agreed with People v. Pillsbury (Sept. 30, 2021, C089002) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, where the Third Appellate District recently held that, "upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the CDCR . . . , trial courts have the authority to recall and resentence defendants based on post-judgment changes in the law giving courts discretion to strike or dismiss enhancements, even when the judgment in the case is long since final and even when the original sentence was the product of a plea agreement." The court also concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to strike defendant's prior serious felony enhancement. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for a new section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) resentencing hearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.