Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hugo Rincon was convicted in 1992, following a retrial, of second degree robbery and kidnapping to commit robbery. The jury found firearm-use and firearm-arming allegations true as to both counts, and Rincon admitted a prior-prison-term allegation under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The superior court imposed life with the possibility of parole plus three years on the kidnapping count, including the prison prior and a firearm enhancement. It imposed a three-year middle term and another firearm enhancement on the robbery count, but stayed that sentence under section 654.
In July 2022, Rincon sought modification of his sentence under Senate Bill No. 483 and section 1172.75, which made retroactive the legislation limiting section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements to qualifying sexually violent offenses. After counsel was appointed and the enhancement was verified, the superior court recalled the sentence at an August 2025 hearing. It struck the prison prior and both section 12022.5 firearm enhancements. Rincon also asked the court to use its discretion under amended section 654 to stay the indeterminate life term and execute the determinate robbery sentence instead.
The court declined that additional reduction after discussing the offense, Rincon's prison records, and parole proceedings. It relied on the circumstances of the kidnapping and robbery, Rincon's disciplinary history, and eight parole denials; Rincon pointed to self-help classes and rehabilitation programs. The resulting judgment retained life with parole eligibility on the kidnapping conviction and a stayed three-year robbery term. Appointed appellate counsel filed a no-issue brief under People v. Delgadillo, and Rincon submitted a supplemental brief, requiring the appellate court to evaluate his particular arguments in a written opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal found no error in the superior court's refusal to reduce the sentence further. It explained that the resentencing court understood its section 654 discretion to stay the life sentence and select the robbery conviction as the base term, but chose not to do so. The court instead struck the invalid prison prior and both firearm enhancements. Under section 1172.75 and People v. Bravo, eliminating the repealed enhancement itself satisfies the requirement that resentencing produce a lesser sentence; here, the additional firearm-enhancement reductions went further.
The panel rejected Rincon's argument that his positive programming, rehabilitation, education, and prison record required a greater reduction. Section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(3), permits consideration of postconviction factors, including rehabilitation and disciplinary history, but does not compel a particular additional reduction. The superior court had considered Rincon's conduct when striking the firearm enhancements, noting a significant period without discipline or allegations. The appellate court therefore concluded that nothing in the statute mandated the further relief Rincon sought.
The panel also rejected Rincon's request for discovery of Los Angeles County statistical data concerning Hispanic and White sentencing disparities and time served for similar crimes. Although he invoked section 745 of the Racial Justice Act and Bonds v. Superior Court, he had not presented a Racial Justice Act argument in his written resentencing motion or at the hearing. The court applied the general rule that failing to raise a sentencing issue below forfeits it on appeal and cited decisions requiring such claims first to be raised in the trial court when possible. Even acknowledging authority contemplating an exception where a claim could not have been raised earlier, the court found no basis to order discovery from a request first made in a supplemental appellate brief. It affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A section 1172.75 resentencing can satisfy the lesser-sentence requirement by removing the repealed prior-prison-term enhancement, without an additional reduction based on rehabilitation.
- The superior court's decision to strike both firearm enhancements gave Rincon a reduction beyond elimination of the invalid prison prior.
- Section 1172.75 permits consideration of incarceration-related rehabilitation and disciplinary evidence but does not require the court to impose a still lower sentence.
- Rincon's request for statistical discovery under the Racial Justice Act failed because he had not raised that claim in the superior court and identified no basis for first-on-appeal discovery.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after independently addressing the arguments in Rincon's supplemental brief under Delgadillo.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how appellate courts distinguish a resentencing court's authority to consider rehabilitation from an obligation to grant additional leniency. It also shows that exercising amended section 654 discretion in favor of retaining the longer executed term does not itself establish error when the court understood its choices and lawfully reduced the overall sentence.
On the Racial Justice Act issue, the opinion leaves open the possibility recognized in prior authority that some claims may be cognizable on direct appeal when they could not have been raised in the trial court. It decides only that the statutes and authorities Rincon cited did not support ordering county sentencing-disparity discovery based on his initial request in a supplemental appellate brief.