Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2004, a jury convicted Donnal Vance Warsinger of assault with a deadly weapon and found he personally inflicted great bodily injury. In a bifurcated proceeding he admitted two prior strike convictions, two prior serious felony convictions (a 1984 robbery and a 1987 assault with a firearm), and five prior prison terms. The court imposed 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law plus a consecutive 13-year determinate term and a $10,000 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), while striking punishment for the great bodily injury enhancement.
In December 2023, the trial court identified Warsinger as a potential resentencing candidate under Penal Code section 1172.75. At a June 11, 2025 resentencing hearing, the court struck the three prior prison term enhancements, denied his Romero motion to strike the prior strikes, and declined to dismiss the two prior serious felony enhancements under section 1385, subdivision (c). It resentenced him to 25 years to life plus a consecutive 10-year determinate term and orally stated it would recall unpaid restitution fines and fees but not victim restitution orders. The abstract of judgment filed June 13, 2025, however, reimposed the $10,000 restitution fine, and Warsinger filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, Warsinger argued his sentence must be vacated and remanded because the trial court abused its discretion in denying dismissal of the prior serious felony enhancements, and that the abstract must be corrected because it conflicted with the oral order striking the restitution fine. The People agreed the abstract must be amended but argued there was no abuse of discretion and that Warsinger forfeited the enhancement claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected the People's forfeiture argument. Warsinger preserved his challenge by requesting dismissal of the prior serious felony enhancements in his resentencing brief, which the trial court read and considered; the court distinguished People v. Gonzalez, finding no misunderstanding between counsel and the court that would forfeit the claim.
On the merits, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Although section 1385, subdivision (c) requires great weight for enumerated mitigating circumstances, it creates no rebuttable presumption favoring dismissal, and the trial court was not required to state its reasons on the record for denying the request. The appellate court presumed the trial court knew and followed the law, and the record contained substantial aggravating evidence—Warsinger's criminal history from 1981 to 2020, violent conduct, and a 2020 felony conviction while incarcerated—supporting the implied finding that aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors.
The court agreed with both parties that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement striking the $10,000 restitution fine, because the oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written orders. It directed the trial court to prepare an amended abstract striking the fine and forward it to the appropriate entities, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant preserves a section 1385, subdivision (c) claim for appeal by raising it in a resentencing brief the trial court reads and considers, without further argument or a request for clarification at the hearing.
- Trial courts need not state reasons on the record when denying a request to dismiss an enhancement under section 1385, subdivision (c), unlike dismissals under subdivision (a).
- Appellate courts presume trial courts know and follow the law and infer findings appropriate to the sentence imposed when the record is silent.
- Substantial aggravating evidence, including a lengthy criminal history and misconduct during incarceration, can outweigh mitigating circumstances under section 1385, subdivision (c).
- When an abstract of judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls and the abstract must be corrected.
Why It Matters
The opinion reinforces the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard for section 1385, subdivision (c) decisions and clarifies that a defendant need not repeat the issue at the resentencing hearing to preserve it for appeal when it was presented in a written brief the court considered. It also confirms that trial courts retain broad discretion to decline dismissal of enhancements even when mitigating factors are present, so long as the record contains countervailing aggravating evidence.
The decision also illustrates the ministerial correction of an abstract of judgment that conflicts with the oral pronouncement, directing the trial court to strike the section 1202.4(b) restitution fine while leaving victim restitution orders intact and affirming the resentencing judgment in all other respects.