Judges CANNOT deny a continuance to prepare a California Racial Justice Act challenge
PEOPLE v. GARCIA (2022)
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alejandro GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.
In 2018, a defendant was sentenced to 24 years in prison. The defendant appealed, and in July 2020, the court affirmed the judgment in part but remanded the matter to allow the trial court to stay the sentence on count four or count five, correct defendant’s custody credits, and amend the abstract of judgment. In March 2021, the defendant filed a motion to strike the ten-year firearm use enhancement, and the trial court appointed Gabriela Guraiib to represent him. Guraiib argued that a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and that longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed. The court denied the section 1385 motion and stayed the sentence on count five, recalculated defendant’s custody credits, and sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of 23 years in prison. The defendant argued that he should be resentenced under section 1170, subdivision (b), as amended by Senate Bill 567. The sentencing court chose the upper term of nine years on count one based on the aggravating circumstance that the offense involved a threat of great bodily injury to multiple individuals.
The defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, In re Mario Garcia, A164591, which was denied by the court. The defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance to enable him to develop facts in support of a motion for discovery under the CRJA. The CRJA prohibits state criminal convictions or sentences based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. To prove a violation, a defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that any individuals involved in the case exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. The trial court holds an evidentiary hearing if a defendant makes a prima facie showing of a CRJA violation. The CRJA also contains a discovery provision, allowing a defendant to file a motion requesting disclosure of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision(a) in the possession or control of the state. The court orders the records to be released upon a showing of good cause, and if the records are not privileged, the prosecution may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure.
The trial court had broad discretion to grant a continuance of trial, but it should not be exercised so as to deprive the defendant or their attorney of a reasonable opportunity to prepare. In this case, defendant’s counsel had less than a week after being appointed to familiarize herself with the case, prepare the sentencing brief, and marshal facts for and prepare a motion for discovery under the CRJA. The defendant’s counsel had less than a week to prepare the case, and there was no indication whether and to what extent such county-level information was likely to have been readily available to counsel in the short time frame between her appointment and the sentencing hearing. The defendant should have been given a reasonable opportunity to review the trial record and gather relevant information to prepare a motion for discovery under the CRJA. The People contend that the trial court reasonably denied the continuance request because defense counsel was ready to proceed on the issues properly before the court, and the court’s jurisdiction was strictly limited to the instructions given by this court on remand from the prior appeal. The People argue that the denial of the continuance motion was not an abuse of discretion because the CRJA does not retroactively apply to defendant. The judgment is reversed and remanded for resentencing under section 1170, subdivision (b).
