## Facts

- Maurice Walker assaulted a woman and a 78-year-old man in Los Angeles in June 2012.
- A jury convicted Walker of assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, and misdemeanor battery.
- The jury found true enhancement allegations for deadly weapon use and infliction of great bodily injury on an elderly person.
- Walker admitted prior-conviction allegations, including strike priors and a prior serious felony.
- Walker received a lengthy prison sentence; subsequent habeas proceedings struck prior prison-term enhancements and led to a remand for a full resentencing.
- At an April 2022 de novo resentencing, after amendments to Penal Code § 1385(c) took effect, Walker sought dismissal of enhancements based on the statute’s enumerated mitigating circumstances and “great weight” directive.
- The trial court declined to dismiss the remaining enhancements, finding dismissal was not warranted “in the interest of justice.”
- The Court of Appeal interpreted § 1385(c)(2) as creating a rebuttable presumption favoring dismissal absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflicting appellate interpretations of § 1385(c)(2).

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 1385(c)(2) creates a rebuttable presumption requiring dismissal of an enhancement upon proof of one or more enumerated mitigating circumstances unless dismissal would endanger public safety.
2. Whether, instead, § 1385(c)(2) requires trial courts to give the enumerated mitigating circumstances great weight while retaining discretion to deny dismissal based on other relevant sentencing considerations.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that Penal Code § 1385(c)(2) does not create a rebuttable presumption requiring dismissal of enhancements.
- The Court interpreted the statute as directing courts to give enumerated mitigating circumstances “great weight” and to treat them as weighing strongly in favor of dismissal, but not as dispositive.
- The Court held that trial courts may consider countervailing aggravating factors and may deny dismissal even without a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety.
- Applying this interpretation, the Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss Walker’s enhancements and affirmed the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 1385(c)(2) requires sentencing courts to consider enumerated mitigating circumstances and afford them “great weight,” meaning they must be treated as strongly favoring dismissal of an enhancement.
- The statute’s “public safety” language identifies an expressly authorized reason to deny dismissal but does not limit the court to that reason alone.
- Section 1385(c) operates within § 1385’s traditional “in furtherance of justice” framework; the amendments channel the weighing process but do not eliminate broad sentencing discretion.
- A sentencing court may deny dismissal after giving great weight to statutory mitigating circumstances if other relevant factors justify retaining the enhancement, so long as the court recognizes its authority and exercises informed discretion.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a burden-shifting, presumption-based reading of Penal Code § 1385(c)(2) and held that, although enumerated mitigating circumstances must be given great weight and strongly favor dismissal, trial courts retain discretion to keep enhancements based on the overall interests of justice and other relevant sentencing factors.


People v. Walker, 553 P.3d 150 (Cal. 2024)