Reported / Citable
Background
Frank Savoy, Jr. was convicted in 2011 of first degree murder and, in a separate incident, residential robbery, forcible rape, attempted murder, and two counts of forcible oral copulation. The jury found true a Penal Code section 12022.53(d) enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm causing death, and the court found three prior prison terms. He received 78 years to life, including consecutive 25-years-to-life terms for murder, the firearm enhancement, and rape. This court affirmed in an unpublished 2013 opinion.
After a change in law ended enhancements for one-year prison priors, Savoy petitioned for resentencing under section 1172.75. At a November 2025 hearing, the Alameda County Superior Court struck the priors and imposed 77 years to life, one year less than before. Savoy also asked the court to strike the gun enhancement under section 1385(c), which tells courts to give great weight to listed mitigating circumstances unless dismissal would endanger public safety. The court found dismissal would endanger public safety and that none of the circumstances he urged was established. It also concluded that the original sentencing judge's remarks responded to victim impact statements and the evidence, and did not show racial bias under the Racial Justice Act (RJA).
On appeal Savoy argued that the court failed to consider and give great weight to evidence that the gun enhancement would have a discriminatory racial impact. In the trial court, his developed argument concerned the original judge's comments about the death penalty; the disparity point appeared only in a footnote citing statewide statistics from a 2021 report of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It agreed that Savoy forfeited the claim by raising it only in a footnote without substantive legal analysis, but it exercised its discretion to reach the merits because of the importance of addressing allegations of racial bias and the legal nature of the argument.
On the merits, the court read section 1385(c)(2)(A) by its plain meaning: the mitigating circumstance exists only if the defendant shows a discriminatory racial impact as described in section 745(a)(4), meaning that imposing the enhancement would violate that RJA provision. That provision has two parts. The defendant must show a longer or more severe sentence than similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and must show that such sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people of his race than on others in the county where he was sentenced. The statute defines both 'more frequently imposed' and 'similarly situated.'
Savoy offered no individual comparators, which the court called fatal. His statewide figures, including that 36 percent of California prisoners with a gun enhancement are Black and 8 percent are White, were not county-specific and did not compare similarly situated individuals. The court also rejected his argument that a lesser showing should suffice because an RJA violation would bar the enhancement outright. A proven violation does not automatically require dismissal: before judgment a court may dismiss if in the interest of justice, and after judgment the remedy is vacatur and resentencing to no greater sentence, without any mandate to strike the enhancement. The 77-years-to-life sentence therefore stands.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing argument raised only in a footnote, without substantive legal analysis, is forfeited, though an appellate court may still reach it in its discretion.
- To earn great weight under section 1385(c)(2)(A), a defendant must make the same section 745(a)(4) showing that would establish an RJA violation; the statute sets no lesser threshold.
- Individual comparator cases involving similarly situated defendants convicted of the same offense are required, and their absence is fatal to the claim.
- Statewide statistics that are not county-specific and do not compare similarly situated individuals do not suffice.
- Even a proven RJA violation does not automatically compel striking an enhancement.
Why It Matters
This is a published decision, so it binds trial courts in resentencing proceedings where defendants invoke the RJA through section 1385(c)(2)(A). It confirms that the mitigating circumstance incorporates the demanding two-part standard of section 745(a)(4) rather than a lighter evidentiary showing, and it signals that defendants relying on statewide data will need county-level and comparator evidence.
The court decided only that Savoy's showing was insufficient; it did not address how a record with proper comparators and county data would fare, and the opinion addresses only the disparate-impact theory rather than the judicial-bias theory the trial court rejected. The judgment, including the 77-years-to-life sentence, was affirmed in full.