Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2014, Kai Walter Williams was convicted by a jury of multiple felonies, including assault with a firearm on a peace officer and carrying a loaded firearm as an active gang participant. The jury also found true numerous enhancements, including three gang enhancements under Penal Code section 186.22. The trial court sentenced Williams to 59 years and four months in state prison, which included an upper term on the assault charge, consecutive terms on the gang enhancements, and a $300 restitution fine.
In 2025, the trial court resentenced Williams under Penal Code section 1172.75, which renders legally invalid certain prior prison term enhancements imposed before January 1, 2020. The court struck the one-year prior prison term enhancement and reduced the sentence to 58 years and four months. However, the court did not specifically address the other issues, including Williams's arguments that the gang enhancements should be vacated in light of Assembly Bill 333, which amended section 186.22 effective January 1, 2022. Williams appealed, contending the trial court erred by failing to consider these issues during the full resentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court was required to consider the ameliorative effects of Assembly Bill 333 on the gang enhancements during the section 1172.75 resentencing. Once a court determines a defendant is entitled to resentencing under section 1172.75, the original sentence is vacated and the court must conduct a full resentencing, applying any changes in the law, including retroactive ameliorative amendments. The amendments to section 186.22 brought about by Assembly Bill 333 are ameliorative and apply retroactively. Because the record showed the trial court did not consider Williams's arguments regarding the gang enhancements, remand was necessary to allow the court to exercise its informed discretion.
The appellate court did not vacate the gang enhancements itself; because the trial court made no findings on the sufficiency of the evidence under the amended statute, the appropriate remedy was to remand so the trial court could examine these claims in the first instance and make findings on the record. The court also found Williams's remaining arguments—concerning the reimposition of the upper term and the restitution fine—moot in light of the remand for full resentencing. The court noted that on remand, Williams could press his argument regarding the restitution fine, which may be unenforceable under section 1465.9, subdivision (d), and that the California Supreme Court was then reviewing whether a trial court can reimpose a previously imposed upper term under section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) without renewed findings.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court conducting a full resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 must consider all ameliorative changes in the law, including retroactive amendments to criminal statutes such as those made by Assembly Bill 333 to the gang enhancement statute.
- A trial court's failure to consider a defendant's arguments regarding retroactive ameliorative amendments during a full resentencing requires remand so the court can exercise its informed discretion.
- The appropriate remedy for a trial court's failure to consider retroactive amendments is generally remand for the trial court to make findings in the first instance, rather than the appellate court vacating enhancements itself.
- Arguments concerning other aspects of a sentence, such as the reimposition of an upper term or a restitution fine, may be rendered moot when the appellate court remands for a full resentencing.
- On remand, a defendant may raise arguments that a restitution fine is unenforceable under Penal Code section 1465.9, subdivision (d), if more than 10 years have passed since its imposition.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that a full resentencing under section 1172.75 is not limited to striking the invalid enhancement but requires the trial court to consider all applicable changes in the law, including retroactive ameliorative amendments. It clarifies that trial courts must address defendants' arguments regarding such amendments and make findings on the record, and that failure to do so will result in remand.
The opinion also highlights the evolving landscape of sentencing law in California, particularly with respect to gang enhancements and the retroactive application of Assembly Bill 333. It underscores the importance of trial courts exercising informed discretion and the limited role of appellate courts in making factual findings in the first instance.