Page 1
Yegan Criticizes ‘Constant Tinkering’ by Legislature With Sentencing Rules
Opinion: New Law Requires Remand for Fourth Sentencing Hearing
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district has remanded a case for a fourth sentencing hearing, in light of new legislation, prompting the author of the opinion, Acting Presiding Justice Kenneth Yegan, to pen a concurring opinion in which he bemoans the Legislature’s “constant tinkering with sentencing rules” and pines for the days of indeterminate sentencing, prior to July 1, 1977.
That’s when the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976 went into effect. At that time, Yegan was a research attorney for the Court of Appeal.
In Wednesday’s opinion for the court, Yegan said that prison inmate Frank Ruiz, who was convicted of a 2013 assault with a firearm and participation in street gang activity, is entitled to have a gang enhancement allegation vacated in light of 2021 legislation boosting the evidentiary burden for sustaining such an enhancement. The matter was remanded to give the prosecution an opportunity to establish the requisites for the enhancement under the new standards.
The opinion recounts previous remands for resentencing.
Justices Hernaldo J. Baltodano and Justice Tari L. Cody joined in the opinion vacating the gang enhancement, granting 1,693 days of custody credits, and otherwise affirming the judgment by Ventura Superior Court Judge David R. Worley. Neither justice signed Yegan’s concurring opinion.
Possible Fourth Appeal
Yegan commented in his separate opinion:
“There is a price to be paid in the quest for perfect justice. Here, by reason of the Legislature’s constant tinkering with sentencing rules, we are asked to reverse/remand for a fourth sentencing hearing. And, of course, if appellant is not satisfied, he will appeal for the fourth time. This is an undue burden upon the criminal justice system, the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal. It also adversely impacts the civil justice system. And, perfect justice, while an admirable goal, is unattainable despite our best efforts.
“This appeal is not an outlier. Resentencing issues now dominate our appellate calendars. There are, undoubtedly, jurists who believe that there should be no limitation on how many resentencing hearings and appeals should transpire. This is a purely academic view of criminal procedure. It ignores practical and ‘workable’ sentencing procedures, as well as the California constitutional harmless error rule. It also erodes the concept of ‘Finality of Judgment.’ ”
The justice remarked that Ruiz is fortunate to have wound up with a 23-year sentence, noting that he might have been charged with attempted murder with a firearm, winding up with a life sentence, with possibility of parole. He reflected:
“But for the grace of God, appellant’s faulty marksmanship, and the victim’s serpentine running, the victim would have suffered a gunshot wound to his back that could have been fatal.”
Former System
Yegan, 76, recalling the old sentencing system, said:
“Ah!, those dear dead days of the indeterminate sentence law. Then, sentencing was pretty easy upon denial of probation. The only significant ‘choice’ was whether to impose consecutive or concurrent terms. There were few sentencing disputes on appeal and I recall no instance where the superior court was called upon to resentence a defendant three times. The sentencing court would say: ‘You are sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law.’ That was it. Sentencing was simple and the Adult Authority would either keep the defendant in prison ‘for the term prescribed by law,’ or grant parole after a suitable period of confinement.”
He added:
“Because of the Legislature’s constant tinkering with the already complex sentencing rules, the law has become an unsettled minefield.”
Yegan pointed to Penal Code §1170(a)(1) which says that “the purpose of sentencing…is best served by terms that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances.” He queried:
“Does anyone think that this goal is now being achieved?”
The case is People v. Ruiz, 2023 S.O.S. 3754.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company