Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2010, a jury convicted Anthony Bowie of two counts of robbery and found that a principal used a firearm during the robbery. The trial court found that Bowie had suffered two prior strike convictions under the Three Strikes law and two prior serious felony convictions, and that he had served two prior prison terms. The court sentenced Bowie to 33 years to life, which included one year for the firearm enhancement, five years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement, and two years for the prior prison term enhancements.
In 2025, the trial court recalled the sentence under Penal Code section 1172.75, struck the prior prison term enhancements, and resentenced Bowie to 31 years to life. The court declined to strike Bowie's two strikes or the serious felony conviction enhancement. Bowie appealed that decision and raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The court held that the trial court exercised its informed discretion in declining to strike the prior strike convictions or the serious felony conviction enhancement. The court rejected Bowie's argument that the trial court did not understand the scope of its discretion under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c), finding that the record showed the trial court was aware of its authority to strike enhancements separate from its discretion to strike prior strikes under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. The court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding, citing Bowie's criminal history, which included two 1999 convictions for attempted murder, multiple parole violations, a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, and the two armed robberies for which he was currently imprisoned. The court likewise rejected Bowie's challenge to the trial court's purported decision not to strike the firearm enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (a)(1), for the same reasons.
Finally, the court rejected Bowie's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding that he failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that any purported error by counsel affected the resentencing. The court noted that the trial court understood the law and exercised its authority lawfully, and that there was sufficient evidence to support not striking any enhancement.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court's decision to decline to strike prior strike convictions or enhancements under Penal Code section 1385 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
- A trial court is presumed to have considered all relevant sentencing factors unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise.
- Substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety, given the defendant's criminal history.
- A defendant's argument that dismissing an enhancement would not endanger the public because he is serving a life sentence and would not be released unless the parole board finds he is not a danger to society was rejected.
- To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the application of Penal Code section 1172.75, which renders legally invalid any former section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020, except for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense. The case also demonstrates the trial court's broad resentencing authority under section 1172.75 and the standard of review for a trial court's decision to decline to strike prior strike convictions or enhancements under section 1385.
The case also highlights the difficulty of establishing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the context of a resentencing hearing, particularly where the trial court understood the law and exercised its authority lawfully, and there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision.