Supreme Court gives trial courts more leeway to not strike sentence enhancements

In People v. Walker, the Supreme Court today interprets Penal Code section 1385(c), which provides that any of nine “mitigating circumstances . . . weighs greatly in favor of dismissing [an earlier imposed sentence] enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.” The proper application of the statutory language had divided the Courts of Appeal.

The court’s opinion by Justice Joshua Groban holds that a superior court is not required to dismiss an enhancement if there is both a mitigating circumstance and no threat to public safety. The court nonetheless states, “the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that ‘may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.’ ”

Justice Carol Corrigan files a concurring opinion. She writes that some of the majority’s phrasing “could be misunderstood to create confusion on the very point we granted review to clarify: whether the statutory language creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of dismissing an enhancement.” Justice Corrigan prefers the majority’s formulation of the rule as, “ ‘[U]ltimately, the court must determine whether dismissal is in furtherance of justice,’ ” and, she adds, “That determination remains in the discretion of the trial court after giving great weight to the presence of mitigating factors.”

The court affirms the Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal’s partially published opinion, but only as to the bottom line. The court disagrees with the Division Two conclusion that section 1385 “obligates a court to dismiss the enhancement unless the court finds that dismissal of that enhancement—with the resultingly shorter sentence—would endanger public safety.” But it doesn’t reverse because the superior court had found a danger to public safety and the appellate court ruled the finding was not an abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court agrees with the Sixth District’s decision in People v. Ortiz (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1087, which is a grant-and-hold for today’s opinion.