Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Resentencing Law Doesn’t Tie Mental Problems to Crime
Panel Says Ameliorative Statute Requires Nexus Between Medical Disorder and Military Service, but Does Not Require That Crime for Which Defendant Was Sentenced Stemmed From Malady
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday reversed an order denying resentencing under a statute applicable to inmates who suffer from mental health problems attributable to military service, holding that it was error to take into account the lack of connection between the defendant’s criminal activity and his medical condition.
Justice Martha K. Gooding authored the opinion which reverses a decision by Orange Superior Court Judge Lance P. Jensen. It orders a resentencing, pursuant Penal Code §1170.91, of Eric Ryan Hayde.
The defendant, a recidivist, was convicted in 2017 on gun-related and forgery charges and sentenced by Orange Superior Court Judge Patrick H. Donahue to 20 years in prison.
Trial Judge’s View
Jensen found that Hayde was eligible for resentencing based on mental health problems related to military service but said that he did “not find any evidence of a connection between” those disorders and his “commission of the numerous offenses in this case.”
A look at the record that was before the sentencing judge, he remarked, “provides this court with sufficient direct and/or circumstantial evidence to reasonably infer that the aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating factors that may have been presented at the time of sentencing.”
He told Hayde:
“The records of your accomplishments while incarcerated to improve yourself are commendable and are an example to all who may currently be incarcerated in the state that you can do things that will make you a better person.”
Gooding’s Opinion
Gooding wrote:
“In finding Hayde unsuitable for resentencing, the court cited the lack of evidence showing Hayde’s commitment offenses were related to the mental disorders he allegedly suffered as a result of his military service. The Attorney General rightfully concedes, however, that resentencing under section 1170.91 turns on whether the defendant’s mental disorders are related to his military service, not whether those disorders were related to his criminal conduct.”
Subd. (b)(1) of that statute provides, as it relates to Hayde:
“A person currently serving a sentence for a felony conviction…who…was a member of the United States military and who may be suffering from… mental health problems as a result of the person’s military service may petition for a recall of sentence…if the circumstance of suffering from… mental health problems as a result of the person’s military service was not considered as a factor in mitigation at the time of sentencing.”
Gooding declared:
“Therefore, the trial court’s reliance on the lack of a demonstrated nexus between Hayde’s mental disorders and his commitment offenses was error.”
‘Highly Relevant Factor
The justice added that Jensen “compounded this error by refusing to consider another factor that was highly relevant to the suitability question: Hayde’s exemplary rehabilitation efforts during his lengthy incarceration.”
Although commending the inmate for these efforts, Jensen specified that he was not taking them into account in making his ruling. Gooding opined:
“A defendant’s conduct in prison has logical bearing on whether the interests of justice favor granting or denying his petition for resentencing.”
Sentence Criticized
Hayde was charged with 11 counts, three of which were dismissed. Charges included three counts of unlawful assault-weapon activity.
His guilt was admitted as to the other remaining counts.
He was sentenced to six years on one of the assault weapon counts and two years on each of the others, with the terms doubled based on a prior offense; terms on other counts were to be served concurrently, except that the term on a count of possessing a large capacity magazine was stayed.
The judgment was affirmed by Div. Three on Dec. 31, 2018, by a panel differently constituted from the one that acted on the appeal yesterday.
Gooding commented:
“[T]he fact that Hayde received a 20 year prison sentence for committing nonviolent, possession-related offenses appears to have been largely overlooked at the hearing on his petition. The trial court did correctly note that part of Hayde’s sentence was attributable to his prior strike conviction for robbery. That conviction, however, is nearly three decades old. Without minimizing the gravity of Hayde’s offenses, when we compare his sentence to the punishment prescribed for offenses significantly more serious than those Hayde has ever committed, we cannot avoid the conclusion that his original sentence of 20 years was at least somewhat excessive.”
The case is People v. Hayde, G063442.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company