People v. Grajeda

Summary

The California Court of Appeal reversed Daniel Tomas Grajeda’s resentencing judgment under Penal Code section 1172.75. The court held that Grajeda had a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and to consult with his attorney before resentencing, including regarding whether to seek dismissal of a firearm enhancement under Senate Bill No. 620. The court directed the superior court to allow consultation with counsel and conduct a new resentencing hearing.

Holdings

1. Once a court determines that a defendant's sentence includes a legally invalid prior-prison-term enhancement, section 1172.75 requires the court to recall the sentence and conduct a full resentencing, rather than merely strike the invalid enhancement.
2. A defendant has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing, including the right to consult with counsel about what relief to seek.
3. The superior court abused its discretion by denying Grajeda's request for a short continuance or recess to speak with his attorney before the resentencing hearing proceeded.
4. The error was presumptively prejudicial and required reversal without a showing that the resentencing outcome would necessarily have been different.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by denying Grajeda's request for a continuance or brief recess to consult with his attorney before resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.
2. Whether a defendant has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, including the right to consult with counsel, at a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing.
3. Whether the denial of the opportunity to consult with counsel was presumptively prejudicial and required reversal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded