{"id":165,"date":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=165"},"modified":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-craig-b343556-section-1172-1-resentencing-standard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=165","title":{"rendered":"People v. Craig \u2014 Trial Court Used Wrong Standard When Denying Discretionary Resentencing Petition Under Section 1172.1"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Craig<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division Seven<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B343556<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Resentencing, Penal Code section 1172.1, Senate Bill 81, Senate Bill 1393, Senate Bill 620, Romero Discretion, Appealability<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In 2015, John Ross Craig pleaded no contest to two counts of second-degree robbery and admitted gun, prior serious felony, and three-strikes allegations. The trial court sentenced him to 23 years in prison: a doubled six-year term plus a 10-year firearm enhancement and a five-year prior-serious-felony enhancement on count one, plus a doubled two-year consecutive term on count two.<\/p>\n

In 2024, with new counsel, Craig filed a ‘petition to recall and resentence’ under Penal Code section 1172.1, citing several intervening reforms: Senate Bill 81 (mitigating factors for enhancement dismissal under section 1385), Senate Bill 1393 (discretion to dismiss the five-year prior-serious-felony enhancement), and Senate Bill 620 (discretion to strike firearm enhancements). He also asked the court to exercise Romero discretion to dismiss his prior strike. The superior court denied the petition. Craig appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed. As a threshold matter, the court held the order denying Craig’s section 1172.1 petition is appealable. Section 1172.1 was amended to allow defendants to initiate the recall-and-resentencing process directly (not just at CDCR’s request), and an order denying such a petition affects the substantial rights of the defendant within the meaning of Penal Code section 1237.<\/p>\n

On the merits, the court held the superior court applied the wrong legal standard when it denied the petition. Under section 1172.1, when post-sentencing reforms have given the trial court new discretion (for example, to strike firearm enhancements or to dismiss prior-serious-felony enhancements), the trial court must consider whether the recently enacted mitigating factors weigh in favor of resentencing \u2014 including the public-safety considerations and any record of rehabilitation. The superior court’s order treated the original sentencing decision as essentially controlling and did not apply the recent statutory framework.<\/p>\n

Because the superior court did not exercise its discretion under the correct standard, the matter was reversed and remanded for a new hearing applying the proper section 1172.1 framework.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n