California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Bustillos is that Senate Bill 567's requirement that upper term sentences be based on stipulated or proven aggravating factors applies retroactively to resentencing proceedings on cases not final on appeal, under circumstances where the defendant violated probation and was resentenced after the law's effective date of January 1, 2022.

Appeal from judgment after probation revocation resentencing in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Defendant Appellant was Edward Bustillos — the defendant who pled no contest to elder abuse, violated probation by failing to appear and failing to complete anger management, then was resentenced to upper term after the law changed.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking to uphold the four-year upper term sentence imposed at resentencing.

The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for felony elder or dependent adult abuse under Penal Code section 368, subdivision (b)(1).

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Bustillos pled no contest to felony elder abuse in 2020, was sentenced to upper term of four years suspended with probation, failed to appear causing probation revocation and bench warrant, then was resentenced in May 2024 to the same four-year upper term after admitting probation violations.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court resentenced defendant to the four-year upper term, ruling that this was the "agreed-upon" sentence from the original plea agreement.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether Senate Bill 567's requirements for imposing upper term sentences apply retroactively to resentencing proceedings in cases not final on appeal.

The Appellate Court held that Senate Bill 567's requirement that upper term sentences be justified by stipulated or proven aggravating factors applies retroactively to resentencing proceedings, requiring reversal where the aggravating factors were neither stipulated to nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case is inapplicable when the case was final on appeal before January 1, 2022, when the defendant stipulates to the aggravating factors at resentencing, or when the aggravating factors are proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

The case leaves open whether defendants who benefit from ameliorative legislation due to their own misconduct (such as absconding) should be treated differently under the Estrada presumption, and whether the Legislature should address this perceived inequity.