State of California v. James Marcel Major

Riverside, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

In February 2014, defendant pled guilty to assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246), prohibited possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant also admitted personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and to additional penalty enhancements under both sections 667 and 667.5. Defendant's admissions included a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)), and having served a prior prison sentence (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).



CRIMINAL LAW. RECALL AND RESENTENCING. The case addresses whether a defendant, whose sentence includes a stayed prior prison enhancement under section 667.5(b) of the California Penal Code, is eligible for recall and resentencing relief under section 1172.75, which requires the enhancement to have been "imposed" prior to January 1, 2020, unless it involves a sexually violent offense. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that a stayed enhancement does not qualify as "imposed" for purposes of section 1172.75, thereby upholding the ruling that the defendant was ineligible for remission of sentence.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. APPEAL JURISDICTION. The court considered the question of appellate jurisdiction over appeals arising from the denial of a defendant's own motion for resentencing under section 1172.75, clarifying that the process is contingent upon identification by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, not initiated by the defendant, aligning with existing case law interpretations.



Key Phrases Recall and resentencing relief. Prior prison enhancement. Imposed and executed sentence. Stayed sentence enhancement. Legislative intent and statutory language.

Affirmed