People v. Vaesau Docket: A165925 (First Appellate District), Opinion Date: August 4, 2023. Based on events that occurred in 1991, when he was a minor, Vaesau was convicted of three counts of attempted premeditated murder and three counts of assault with a firearm, all six of which were accompanied by allegations of personal use of a firearm and personal infliction of great bodily injury, plus a separate assault. The court sentenced him to two consecutive life terms, plus 14 years. Thirty years later, San Francisco’s then-District Attorney, Boudin, filed a request to resentence Vaesau under former Penal Code section 1170.03, now 1172.1, which authorizes a trial court, “at any time upon the recommendation of ... the district attorney,” to recall the sentence and resentence a defendant convicted of a felony. Weeks later, Boudin was recalled, and the new District Attorney moved to withdraw the request without offering a substantive reason for doing so. After briefing and a hearing, the trial court granted the motion without ruling on the merits. The court of appeal vacated. A trial court has discretion but is not required, to terminate a section 1172.1 proceeding when a district attorney identifies a legitimate basis for withdrawing the resentencing request and moves to withdraw before the court rules on the merits. Here, the district attorney here did not offer any such reason.
Did you know that many courts providing 1172.1 & 1172.6 relief considered a defendant's in-prison conduct and rehabilitation efforts? Posse Solutions LLC is here to educate them unto rehabilitation. This is what we do! Email us at email@example.com, or call us at (213) 572-6227 for more information. #SB1437 #SB775 #resentencing #rehabilitation