6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/12/02 Afternoon Session - Dec 02, 2025

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/12/02 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 21 min 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 are the procedural introductions and appearances for this oral argument?

Sharin Alumi 0:12

Mr. Baker, can you please turn your camera and microphone on?

Kareem Baker 0:20

Thank you.

Kareem Baker 1:36

All right, the Court of Appeal for the Six Zipto District is now a session. Active presiding justice now, Alison and Banner. So it's a justice to our

Unknown 1:50

Good afternoon.

Kareem Baker 1:54

Good afternoon.

Unknown 1:55

Good afternoon.

Kareem Baker 1:56

Yeah.

Unknown 1:58

Sorry, I just lost the picture. Your just one moment.

Unknown 2:10

Okay. Sorry, you're back. All right, welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for oral argument. We have one case on the afternoon calendar. H zero five one one seven five people plaintiff and respondent versus Jacob Andrew Benitez, defendant and appellant. I will take appearances and time estimates beginning with counsel for appellant.

Kareem Baker 2:33

Yes. Kareem Baker uh appearing on behalf of Jacob Andrew Benitez and I anticipate my uh my first oral argument will be ten minutes and my rebuttal will be five minutes.

Unknown 2:48

Thank you, Mr. Baker. And for the Attorney General's office.

Sharin Alumi 2:52

Sharin Alumi for respondent and I anticipate um ten minutes, your honors. I initially said fifteen, but ten. Okay.

Unknown 3:01

You can have up to fifteen if you'd like it. And uh And for both counsel, I will keep track uh of your time here and let you know when you have about a minute left on each of your arguments. So, Mr. Baker, we look forward to hearing your comments.

How does appellant’s counsel argue the trial court abused discretion under §1385?

Unknown 3:16

Please, you have ten minutes or go ahead.

Kareem Baker 3:18

Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Um based on the uh letter that was provided by the the sub the request for supplemental briefing, I'm gonna focus on uh the uh trial court's refusal to dim dismiss the enhancement under section thirteen eighty five. Um, I submit to my other arguments as far as brags and and that's uh resentencing pursuant to the secretary's amen recommendation. I'll submit on those for now. Um I would just note that a trial court abuses its discretion when it considers factors under thirteen eighty five where it doesn't consider the relative r relevant factors as an abusive discretion. Here Under section thirteen eighty five, the court considered one possible mitigating factor is whether his youth

Kareem Baker 4:10

Mr. Benitez youth played uh was a significant part of this uh incident. The court found it wasn't Based on that I'm of the position the court did not find any additional uh factors under six section thirteen eighty five to give uh great weight to. And but there were two that were there. Uh the two that the the court failed to consider in great grade two give great weight to were multiple enhancements were alleged in a single case. Uh so all but one should have been stricken. and the application of the enhancements resulted in a sentence over twenty years. The court considered neither of these And their silence did not the court silence on this did not compel a conclusion that it uh understood its discretion uh considering these factors because um

Kareem Baker 5:05

But the fact also made no dangerousness under uh s dangerousness finding going to the uh the second question in item one. They didn't make a dangerousness finding under section thirteen eighty five uh if he was released early, and that's consistent with the court's ruling. It considered a mitigating factor, didn't find it applicable. So it's on to the next or it's next analysis um about the issue uh of whether he should be resentened pursuant to the secretary's letter. Um And so I would note that the respondent says that the court did consider these two factors that I mentioned. Um But When it The defense attorney makes a reference on pa the co the the the uh res the respondent s uh s quotes pages six hundred five and six hundred seventeen.

What mitigating factors did the trial court consider—or fail to consider—in Benitez’s sentencing?

Kareem Baker 6:03

On page six hundred five The uh attorney makes a reference uh i that Benitez uh these enhancements would be sentenced you over twenty years. The court never made a ruling uh based on that mitigating factor. It didn't go any further. They made the comment but Defense counsel didn't get any further uh advisement from the court or or bring that up. Uh the

Unknown 6:28

council, Mr. Baker, the the statute doesn't require that the court make any specific findings when it's declining uh to strike the enhancements, correct? Correct. So the fact that the court didn't do so, why do we find it error here?