People v. Bonilla-Bray
Decision Date | 29 April 2020 |
Docket Number | B299607 |
Citation | 49 Cal.App.5th 234,262 Cal.Rptr.3d 754 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jonathan BONILLA-BRAY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Jonathan Bonilla-Bray is a Marine Corps veteran who alleges that, because of his service, he suffers from mental health and substance abuse problems. To help veterans like defendant, since 2015, California law has required trial courts to consider service-related trauma, substance abuse, and mental health problems as mitigating factors weighing in favor of low-term felony sentences. In 2018, the Legislature expanded this relief to allow people sentenced before 2015 to petition for a resentencing hearing in which the court considers service-related mitigating factors. As amended, Penal Code section 1170.91 lays out eligibility criteria and provides that upon receiving a petition, the court must hold a public hearing to determine whether the defendant satisfies those criteria. Defendant contends the trial court here erred by summarily denying his petition for recall and resentencing without following the required procedures. The People properly concede the point, and we agree. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
By information dated May 27, 2011, defendant was charged with one count of carjacking ( Pen. Code,1 § 215, subd. (a) ; count 1) and one count of attempted carjacking (§§ 664/215, subd. (a); count 2). The information also alleged that he personally used a firearm in the commission of count 2 (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Defendant pled not guilty and denied the allegation.
At defense counsel's request, the court appointed a psychiatrist to examine defendant. The doctor concluded defendant suffered from serious mental health issues but was fit to stand trial.
On August 16, 2011, defendant pled no contest to count 2 and admitted the allegation. The court sentenced him to state prison for 12 and a half years—the midterm of two and a half years for count 2 plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. In accordance with the terms of the plea, the court recommended that defendant receive "psychiatric/psychological treatment" in state prison. The court dismissed count 1.
On April 23, 2019, defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence and resentencing under Assembly Bill No. 865 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 523, § 1) (hereafter A.B. 865). In the petition, defendant alleged that he had served in the United States Marine Corps, where he suffered from both "serious mental health issues and substance abuse addiction," and that his military service "had a substantial and detrimental effect on his mental health and well being." Defendant also noted that, while the charges were pending in his case, a court-appointed psychiatrist found that he suffered from "serious mental health issues, but was otherwise fit to stand trial." And, he said that the trial court had not considered the effects of his military service as a factor in mitigation at sentencing, which occurred before January 1, 2015. Thus, defendant asked the court to resentence him to the low term for count 2 and to strike the firearm enhancement using its authority under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.). He requested counsel and the right to be present at any hearing.
On May 28, 2019, the court summarily denied what it called a "petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to SB 620" without appointing counsel or holding a hearing. The court specifically stated that defendant had "failed to show a prima facie case for relief" and that he had the burden to "establish grounds for his release." The court added, The court did not mention either A.B. 865 or section 1170.91.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant contends that because he filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.91 that met the statutory requirements for relief, the court erred by failing either to address those claims or to hold a noticed public hearing as required under subdivision (b)(3) of the statute. The People concede the error, and we agree.
This is an issue of statutory interpretation, which we consider de novo. ( People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 309, 355 P.3d 480.)
Effective January 1, 2015, sentencing courts must consider any trauma, substance abuse, and mental health problems caused by a defendant's service in the United States military as mitigating factors weighing in favor of a low-term sentence. ( § 1170.91, subd. (a), enacted by Stats. 2014, ch. 163, § 2.) A.B. 865 amended that statute to allow people sentenced before January 1, 2015, to petition for a resentencing hearing in which the court takes into account mitigating factors related to military service. ( § 1170.91, subd. (b)(1).)
To be eligible for resentencing, a petitioner must meet the following criteria:
Section 1170.91, subdivision (b)(3), in turn, establishes procedures for the trial courts to evaluate resentencing petitions. It provides that upon receiving a petition, the court must hold a public hearing after at least 15 days to determine whether the defendant meets the statutory criteria. (Ibid .)
Here, defendant filed a petition on April 23, 2019, after the statute's effective date. He wrote that he had served in the Marine Corps and ended up suffering from "serious mental health issues and substance abuse addiction" as a result. To support this claim, he attached extensive Marine Corps service records and CDCR mental health records. He also stated that the trial court had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Brooks
...triad discretion. (See People v. King (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 783, 786, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 571 ( King ); People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 238, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 754 ).In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1170.91 to add a retroactivity clause and a procedure for resentencing. (......
-
People v. Usilton
...of the language now stated in subdivision (a). (People v. Estrada (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 839, 841; People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 238; People v. King (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 783, 788; Stats. 2014, ch. 16, § 2.) "If the court concludes that a defendant convicted of a felony o......
-
People v. Perez
...mental health problems, and substance abuse "as mitigating factors weighing in favor of low-term felony sentences." (People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 236.) Whensentencing Simental, the court imposed upper-term, determinate sentences on counts 5 and 7 through 9 and did not r......
-
People v. Valliant
...as of January 1, 2015." ( § 1170.91, subd. (b)(1)(A) & (B), italics added.)Hence, as explained in People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 238, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 754, ( Bonilla-Bray ) "[t]o be eligible for resentencing, a petitioner must meet the following criteria: [¶] He or she is ......
-
Military and Veteran Highlights of 2021
...55 Cal.App. 5th 903 (2020)).A hearing to recall a sentence under section 1170.91 must be a public hearing. (People v. Bonilla-Bray, 49 Cal. App. 5th 234 (2020)).PROMOTION PHOTOS Shortly after George Floyd was killed in 2020, then Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a military-wide direct......