1DCA Division 2 Oral Argument - 2026/2/13 - Feb 13, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 2 Oral Argument - 2026/2/13

California First District Court of Appeal 1h 13m 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural steps does the court take at the start of the oral argument?

Unknown 0:23

Morning everybody. I think we have everyone in person today, which is lovely. Of course we have a pretty short calendar. Um you may be seated. I'm gonna call the two cases on the calendar this morning and um If you will state your appearances, that would be great. The first case is people versus canon.

Unknown 0:54

Thank you. And the second case is Doe versus Regents of the University of California. Well, you show what card we have. Thank you. Okay. Um, so there's no complications in our schedule today, so let's get started with the Canon case.

Unknown 1:34

Morning, your honors. May it please the court. Um this is a case about resentencing and As the court I'm sure is well aware, this is a case that is not unlike a lot of other cases that are either being brought before you or now pending before the Supreme Court. uh regarding how you go about conducting resentencing. Um The purpose of resentencing is to make sure that there are Consistencies in the sentencing based on current law. So resentencing is not some uh informal practice. It's supposed to be a new sentencing hearing. Um and I cited to the court in my letter the Craig case. And I'd just like to compare the Craig case a little bit to our case because I think it's Relevant not only because of the result that the court reached, but it's relevant because our case was a mandatory resentencing case because there was an invalid prior.

Unknown 2:48

The Craig case was a non-mandatory. requirement and the court found that the um lower court erred because it took into account too much of the plea as being limiting its authority. And the Court of Appeals made it clear that just because there's a plea doesn't prevent the court from looking at the case anew as they're supposed to do with resentencing based on current circumstances and changes in the law. But you don't contend here that the court um thought it was limited in its resentencing ability by the fact that there was a plea, do you? Well, I do. And the reason I do is if you look carefully at the courts language. And in particular, at page six twenty nine of the record. The court says I don't believe I'm looking at this with a full

Unknown 3:51

Um Free and full sl fresh and full slave because it was a plea. But did the court mean that that As compared to a trial where the court would have had, you know, a whole trial record to look at as opposed to just the record of a plea. Which is smaller factually? They could have looked at the record. There's nothing that prevented them from looking at the record. Both sides had the power to present whatever they wanted, including the preliminary hearing transcript, and for whatever reason that wasn't done. Right, but couldn't I think Justice Miller is suggesting that the court was saying, Look, I don't have a full factual record because there was no trial in this case. I mean that is at least one way to read the trial court's comment, not I can't

Unknown 4:39

uh rule on resentencing because There's a plea. Well, but the fact that she mentions that and that she might she also mentions before she s makes that I may have had a different view. Of what should have been done. She says I may have thought something would be have been more appropriate. And that's right before she talks about the uh problem of the plea. And I mean I I don't think the court should be um You know, trying to find ways to parse comments when we know this was this was a heavily briefed case. I mean, the Contra Costa Public Defender presented a lot of evidence, and much more so than the Craig in the Craig case. And like I said, the Craig case was a discretionary review. It wasn't a re view based on an invalid um prior conviction.

Unknown 5:39

And in the Craig case, the sentence was twenty three years um And it was a again a plea bargain sentenced, and the court said Because and there the defendant was 24 or 22 years old. Our defendant at the time is 23 or 24. The sentence was 23 years, and the court mandated, the court of appeals mandated it go back down to the court to make that kind of resentencing determination. This is a far stronger case than that, because in that case the court