Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Brandon David Thompson appealed after the San Mateo County Superior Court resentenced him under Penal Code section 1172.75. In May 2013, he pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon in exchange for an 18-year prison sentence and dismissal of a murder charge. He also admitted personally using a deadly or dangerous weapon, personally inflicting great bodily injury, and serving two prior prison terms. The Court of Appeal declined to summarize the facts underlying the offenses because they were not relevant to the issue on appeal.
In June 2013, the trial court sentenced Thompson to 18 years: an 11-year upper term for voluntary manslaughter with a consecutive one-year term for using a deadly weapon; consecutive one-year sentences (one-third the middle term) for each of the three assaults; a consecutive one-year term for inflicting great bodily injury on one of the assaults; and an additional year for each of his two prior prison terms. Thompson later sought resentencing under section 1172.75 and requested a 13-year sentence. In May 2025, the trial court resentenced him to 16 years, striking the now-invalid prior-prison-term enhancements but otherwise leaving the sentence unchanged.
The appeal turned on the interaction of two 2021 legislative changes. First, the Legislature amended section 1170 to allow a sentence above the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation justify the upper term and the supporting facts were stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Second, Senate Bill 483 enacted section 1172.75, which made retroactive the 2019 limitation of prior-prison-term enhancements to sexually violent offenses and required the trial court to recall and resentence affected in-custody defendants. The dispute concerned subdivision (d)(4), which provides that unless the court originally imposed the upper term, a sentence exceeding the middle term requires justified aggravating circumstances supported by stipulation or trial findings.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It explained that section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely striking the invalid enhancements, and that section 1172.75(d)(4) separately addresses when the heightened factfinding rules of amended section 1170 apply at resentencing. The trial court interpreted subdivision (d)(4) to permit reimposition of the upper term on the voluntary manslaughter count without the aggravating-circumstances findings required by amended section 1170.
Thompson urged the court to follow People v. Gonzalez, which read subdivision (d)(4) as limiting upper-term eligibility at resentencing to defendants who had previously received the upper term. The Court of Appeal instead agreed with People v. Brannon-Thompson, rejected Gonzalez's reasoning as adopted in People v. Mathis, and adhered to its own conclusion in Mathis: subdivision (d)(4) is not ambiguous and expresses the Legislature's intent that the new factfinding requirements do not apply where the defendant was originally and lawfully sentenced to an upper term.
The court therefore rejected Thompson's statutory argument and affirmed the judgment. Because it resolved the claim on the merits, it did not address the prosecution's alternative argument that Thompson forfeited the claim. A footnote observed that the same issue is currently before the California Supreme Court in People v. Eaton and Mathis, but this opinion did not decide that pending review.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal affirmed Thompson's 16-year sentence imposed at his May 2025 resentencing.
- Striking the invalid prior-prison-term enhancements did not bar the trial court from otherwise retaining the original sentencing structure.
- Under the court's reading of section 1172.75(d)(4), new aggravating-factor findings were unnecessary because Thompson had originally and lawfully received the upper term.
- The panel agreed with Brannon-Thompson, rejected Gonzalez's reasoning in Mathis, and adhered to its own Mathis conclusion rather than adopting Gonzalez's interpretation.
- The court reached the merits without deciding whether Thompson had forfeited his claim.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Division Five's existing interpretation of section 1172.75(d)(4) to a resentencing under Senate Bill 483, distinguishing the mandatory removal of invalid prior-prison-term enhancements from the separate question whether amended section 1170's heightened factfinding rules govern reimposition of an upper term.
The opinion notes that the issue is currently before the California Supreme Court, including in People v. Eaton. Its immediate effect is affirmance of Thompson's judgment, and its reasoning follows Mathis rather than establishing a new interpretation of the statute.