Page 1
Court of Appeal:
‘Shall Be Dismissed’ Language in Statute Is Not Mandatory
Justice Menetrez Says Phrase in Recently Enacted Enhancement-Dismissal Law
Must Be Harmonized With Proviso That Public Safety Not Be Endangered
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A statute that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2022 providing that an enhancement allegation “shall be dismissed” where it would result in a sentence in excess of 20 years is not mandatory when read in the context of preceding language, Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal declared on Friday.
Penal Code §1385(c)(1) says:
“Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.”
Sec. (c)(2) sets forth:
“In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. ‘Endanger public safety’ means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.”
Subparagraph (C) lists this circumstance: “The application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years.”
It adds:
“In this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.”
Armed Robber Resentenced
Gabriel Manuel Mendoza, who committed an armed robbery in 2006, was convicted and sentenced in 2007, and was resentenced in 2022 after the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pointed out a flaw in the initial sentence, contended that the words “shall be dismissed” rendered mandatory the striking of his firearm enhancement because it would otherwise result in a sentence in excess of 20 years.
Riverside Superior Court Judge John D. Molloy rejected that contention, saying that “the facts of this case support the conclusion that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.”
He added:
“Somebody who chooses to commit this type of an offense is a serious threat to society and a relatively long prison sentence is necessary to protect the public and keep the defendant away from the public and to provide time for the defendant to become rehabilitated. Both through programs in prison and through time to reflect on these crimes and mature in himself If the Court were to dismiss the enhancement in this case, the aggregate sentence for this terrifying home invasion robbery would be reduced to a mere five years and eight months. This sentence is inappropriately short and would not effectuate the goals of sentencing given the facts, reducing the sentence poses a likelihood that the defendant will commit a crime that results in physical injury or serious danger to others.”
Judgment Affirmed
Molloy imposed a 20-year enhancement and sentenced Mendoza to 26 years and eight months in prison. Justice Frank J. Menetrez authored the opinion affirming the judgment.
“We interpret the ‘shall be dismissed’ directive in section 1385(c)(2)(C) not in isolation but by harmonizing the various parts of subdivision (c) of section 1385,” he wrote, elaborating:
“Section 1385(c)(2) provides that in determining whether to dismiss an enhancement ‘under this subdivision,’ the court must consider nine listed mitigating circumstances if proven by the defendant…), ‘unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety’….That provision means that if the court finds that dismissal of an enhancement ‘would endanger public safety,’ then the court need not consider the listed mitigating circumstances….The ‘shall be dismissed’ language in section 1385(c)(2)(C), like the language of all of the listed mitigating circumstances, applies only if the court does not find that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. That interpretation gives meaning to the language in section 1385(c)(2) requiring the court to consider whether dismissal ‘would endanger public safety,’ and it consequently avoids rendering that language surplusage.”
Statutory-Interpretation Rules
Menetrez continued:
“In contrast, Mendoza’s interpretation gives no effect to the clause ‘unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.’…That is, Mendoza’s interpretation would require a court to dismiss any enhancement when application of the enhancement could result in a sentence greater than 20 years regardless of whether dismissal would endanger public safety. We avoid interpretations that render statutory language surplusage….We also must avoid interpretations that lead to absurd results….On Mendoza’s interpretation, dismissal of his firearm enhancement was statutorily required even though (1) the statute expressly invites consideration of whether dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety, and (2) the court found that it would. That is, according to Mendoza’s interpretation, the statute required the sentencing court to endanger public safety. That cannot be what the Legislature intended.”
The case is People v. Mendoza, E078534.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company