Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Derick Darnell Harmon was convicted of second-degree robbery and sentenced on December 13, 1994 to 50 years to life. The orally pronounced sentence consisted of 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law and a consecutive 25-year determinate term for five prior serious felony conviction enhancements. Three one-year prior prison term enhancements ran concurrently. The written 1994 records did not accurately reflect that oral sentence: they described four serious-felony enhancements and an additional five-year robbery term.
Legislation effective in 2020 narrowed the prior prison term enhancement, and later legislation made that change retroactive through a resentencing procedure for eligible incarcerated defendants. After the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified Harmon as potentially eligible, on July 21, 2022, Judge Ricardo R. Ocampo struck the three section 667.5, subdivision (b), prior prison term enhancements without notifying the parties or having them present, leaving the remainder of the sentence unchanged. Harmon's untimely appeal was treated as a habeas petition and granted, resulting in a remand for a full resentencing hearing. See People v. Harmon (Dec. 9, 2024, B335051).
At the November 21, 2025 hearing, Harmon sought dismissal of four of his five prior strike convictions and second-strike sentencing. The prosecution agreed with Harmon that the court should strike one of the two prior serious felony enhancements that arose from the same case, but disagreed with his request for dismissal of prior strikes and second-strike sentencing. The court denied Harmon's request to dismiss four of the five prior strike convictions or any of them, citing public safety and Harmon's criminal history and prison conduct. It struck the three prior prison term enhancements and one of the prior serious felony conviction enhancements, and sentenced Harmon to 45 years to life: an indeterminate third-strike term of 25 years to life plus a consecutive determinate term of 20 years for four 5-year prior serious felony conviction enhancements. Harmon timely appealed, challenging the determinate portion of that sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected Harmon's reliance on Penal Code section 1170.1, explaining that the cited provision governs determinate sentences, whereas his robbery sentence was an indeterminate third-strike term. It also rejected his argument that section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(A)(ii), prohibits enhancements because it does not expressly mention them. That provision addresses calculation of the minimum indeterminate term and contains no language precluding imposition of enhancements on an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life.
The court then examined section 667, subdivision (a)(1), which requires a five-year enhancement for each qualifying prior serious felony conviction brought and tried separately and states that the present offense and enhancements run consecutively. Relying on People v. Williams, the court explained that enhancements can serve two functions in third-strike cases: calculating the minimum life term and adding a separate determinate term served before the indeterminate sentence. Williams specifically supported the latter structure even when the minimum term was set at 25 years under subdivision (e)(2)(A)(ii). Harmon's challenge therefore failed.
The court separately directed correction of clerical errors in the December 13, 1994 minute order and judgment, the December 19, 1994 abstract of judgment, and the March 5, 2026 abstract of judgment. Those documents incorrectly added a five-year robbery term and understated the number of serious-felony enhancements. The corrected records must reflect the sentences actually pronounced on December 13, 1994 and November 21, 2025. The court also instructed that the accurately recorded concurrent three-year term for the 1994 prior prison term enhancements not be removed during correction, and directed the superior court to forward a copy of the current amended abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Key Takeaways
- A determinate term composed of prior serious felony enhancements may run consecutively to a 25-years-to-life third-strike sentence.
- Section 1170.1's determinate-sentencing rules did not govern Harmon's indeterminate robbery sentence.
- The absence of enhancement language in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(A)(ii), did not prohibit enhancements authorized by section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
- Sentencing documents must be corrected to match the court's oral pronouncements rather than adding terms or changing the number of enhancements.
- The judgment was affirmed, but the superior court received specific directions to correct the December 13, 1994 minute order and judgment, the December 19, 1994 abstract, and the March 5, 2026 abstract, and to forward the current amended abstract to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Why It Matters
The decision applies California Supreme Court authority to a recurring sentencing-structure question: an indeterminate third-strike term and a consecutive determinate enhancement term are distinct components of an aggregate sentence. It also demonstrates that a section 1172.75 resentencing can produce a reduced aggregate term without requiring dismissal of prior strikes or conversion to second-strike sentencing.
The affirmance did not leave the inaccurate paperwork in place. The opinion identifies the precise corrections required for the 1994 and 2026 records while preserving the accurately recorded concurrent enhancement term in the original documents.