People v. Frazier
Decision Date | 13 October 2020 |
Docket Number | B300612 |
Citation | 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 806,55 Cal.App.5th 858 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Virginia FRAZIER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Wayne C. Tobin, Newbury Park, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and William N. Frank, Deputy Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Secretary) recommended the trial court recall Virginia Frazier's 23-year prison sentence imposed more than a decade earlier and resentence her pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1),1 citing Frazier's exemplary postconviction conduct. The court entered an order summarily declining to recall Frazier's sentence. On appeal Frazier contends the court violated due process by making its decision without appointing counsel for her. We affirm.
In November 2007 Frazier attacked her boyfriend with a steak knife and slashed his arm, which he had raised defensively to protect himself during the assault. A jury convicted Frazier of one count of assault with a deadly weapon and found true the special allegation that Frazier had personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).
In a bifurcated proceeding on specially alleged prior conviction allegations, Frazier admitted she had suffered three prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and three prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The court dismissed two of Frazier's qualifying strike convictions in the interest of justice and sentenced her to 23 years in prison, eight years for the aggravated assault (the upper term of four years, doubled under the three strikes law), plus five years for the great bodily injury enhancement and five years for each of her two, separately tried, prior serious felony convictions. (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).)
We affirmed Frazier's conviction and sentence. ( People v. Frazier (June 29, 2009, B208449), 2009 WL 1842666 [nonpub. opn.].)
On May 31, 2019 the Secretary sent a letter and supporting case summary to the trial court pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), recommending the court recall Frazier's sentence and resentence her. The Secretary informed the court that Frazier, nearly 70 years old, had demonstrated exemplary behavior while in prison; had completed a 24-week Alcoholics Anonymous program and multiple educational courses, including classes addressing conflict resolution and responses to violence; and had served as a role model for other students in the prison population. Frazier's only disciplinary issue during her more than decade-long incarceration was a refusal to perform an assigned duty in September 2017.
On July 3, 2019 the trial court issued a minute order stating, Frazier appealed.2
Section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), authorizes the court, "within 120 days of the date of commitment on its own motion, or at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of state prison inmates ... [to] recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence."3 This provision thus creates "an exception to the common law rule that the court loses resentencing jurisdiction once execution of sentence has begun." ( Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 455, 279 Cal.Rptr. 834, 807 P.2d 1063 ; accord, People v. McCallum (Sept. 30, 2020, B301267) 55 Cal.App.5th 202, ––––, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 336, 341 (McCallum ) []; People v. Delson (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 56, 62, 207 Cal.Rptr. 244 [same].)
We review the court's order declining to follow the Secretary's recommendation for abuse of discretion. ( McCallum, supra , 55 Cal.App.5th at p. ––––, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 336, 341–42 ; cf. People v. Gibson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 315, 324-325, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 253 [ ].) We review Frazier's constitutional claim on undisputed facts de novo. ( In re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019, 1035, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 343 P.3d 867 [" ‘[w]hen the application of law to fact is predominantly legal, such as when it implicates constitutional rights and the exercise of judgment about the values underlying legal principles, court's review is de novo’ "].)
Frazier contends the court erred in summarily declining to recall her sentence without appointing counsel to represent her. While recognizing that nothing in section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), authorizes appointment of counsel following the Secretary's recommendation for recall and resentencing, Frazier argues appointment of counsel is required as a matter of due process at this "critical stage" of a criminal proceeding to marshal necessary evidence and address at a hearing any reservations the court may have about the Secretary's recommendation.4
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, binding on states through the Fourteenth Amendment, affords an indigent defendant facing incarceration the right to court-appointed counsel for his or her defense at every "critical stage" of the criminal process up to and including sentencing and imposition of judgment. ( Marshall v. Rodgers (2013) 569 U.S. 58, 62, 133 S.Ct. 1446, 185 L.Ed.2d 540 [ ]; Gardner v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2019) 6 Cal.5th 998, 1003, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 58, 436 P.3d 946 [same].)
The Sixth Amendment provides no right to appeal and thus no guarantee of counsel on direct appeal. ( Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. (2000) 528 U.S. 152, 155, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597.) However, when the state provides a defendant with a direct appeal as a matter of right, the right to counsel on appeal is required as a matter of due process and equal protection under both the state and federal constitutional guarantees. ( Ibid. ; In re Barnett (2003) 31 Cal.4th 466, 472, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 108, 73 P.3d 1106 ; see Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 555, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 [ ].)
There is no federal constitutional right to counsel in connection with a postconviction habeas corpus petition attacking the validity of a judgment. ( Coleman v. Thompson (1991) 501 U.S. 722, 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 ; Murray v. Carrier (1986) 477 U.S. 478, 487, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397.) However, the California Supreme Court has held, "if a petition attacking the validity of a judgment states a prima facie case leading to issuance of an order to show cause, the appointment of counsel is demanded by due process concerns." ( In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 780, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729 ; People v. Shipman (1965) 62 Cal.2d 226, 232, 42 Cal.Rptr. 1, 397 P.2d 993 [ ]; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.551(c)(1), (2) [ ].)
Emphasizing the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel at all critical stages of a criminal proceeding, Frazier asserts the Secretary's recommendation for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), is a "critical stage" that, as this case demonstrates, can mean the difference between an inmate receiving an ameliorative sentence (including, perhaps, immediate release based on time served) and potentially spending the rest of her life in prison. However, as discussed, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at critical stages of a criminal proceeding through sentencing does not apply...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Cepeda
..."furnishes the court with the jurisdiction it would not otherwise possess to recall and resentence[.]" ( People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 858, 866, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 806.) In this case, because the trial court has already exercised its discretion to recall Cepeda's sentence and resente......
-
People v. Wilson
...53 Cal.3d 442, 459 & fn. 13 [the trial court is not required to accept CDCR's recommendation to recall a sentence]; People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 858, 866 [a recommendation by CDCR does nottrigger "any right to the recommended relief"]; see also People v. McCallum (2020) 55 Cal.Ap......
-
People v. Pillsbury
...a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel before a court summarily declines to recall his sentence. In People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 858, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, Division Seven of the Second District held that "the filing of the Secretary's recommendation letter inviting the ......
-
People v. Martinez
...they had not previously been sentenced, provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.'" (People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 858, 863.) Martinez argued that, in light of recent changes in the law, it was in the interest of justice to allow him to withdraw a......
-
Table of Cases null
...6, §3.6 People v. Franklin, 25 Cal. App. 4th 328, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 376 (6th Dist. 1994)—Ch. 4-A, §3.3.1(1)(b) People v. Frazier, 55 Cal. App. 5th 858, 269 Cal. Rptr. 3d 806 (2d Dist. 2020)—Ch. 5-D, §2.1.1(2)(h) People v. Frazier, 128 Cal. App. 4th 807, 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336 (3d Dist. 2005)—C......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...seeking a more ameliorative sentence . . . , at least prior to the actual recall of sentence." People v. Frazier (2d Dist.2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 858, 865-66 (holding that filing a Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recommendation letter inviting the court to exercis......