San Bernardino veteran Ronnie Harrell agreed to a 28-year sentence in 2001. He asked to be resentenced this year. His request, first denied by San Bernardino Superior Judge Gregory Tavill, was approved by the California Court of Appeal Sept. 1.
Harrell is qualified to be resentenced because of Penal Code Section 1170.91, the court ruled.
The code allows convicted veterans who suffer from military-related issues to have their disorders taken into consideration during sentencing. It covers post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, sexual trauma, traumatic brain injuries and mental health problems, if the problems emerged from the defendant’s military service.
In 2022, the law was amended to cover veterans who pleaded guilty, in addition to veterans who were convicted by jury. It also was amended to apply to indeterminate sentences, and to disqualify convicted sex offenders or certain violent offenses.
Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) authored the bill. It passed the Senate 36-1 and the Assembly 61-0.
Harrell was honorably discharged from the United States Army in 1981, and claims multiple service-related disorders.
In 2001, Harrell was charged with five felonies: attempted murder, first degree residential robbery, first degree burglary, felony false imprisonment and assault with a firearm. He pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm enhancement and a prior strike. The plea deal included a stipulated sentence of 28 years in prison.
He petitioned to be resentenced under Penal Code Section 1170.91 in 2023, 22 years into his 28-year sentence. Tavill denied his petition. Case law set in 2020’s People v. King had established that stipulated sentences are categorically ineligible for relief under Section 1170.91, Tavill ruled.
The Court of Appeal found, however, that the recent changes to Section 1170.91 carved out an exception to the rule established in King. The legislature clearly intended to make the changes apply to people serving stipulated sentences, the Court of Appeal found.
The Court of Appeal did not clearly rule that the legislature had the power to do so. It concluded that the legislature did, but also said there were potential constitutional arguments against the law that the People did not bring up, and which the court would not consider. The ruling ended by saying that Section 1170.91’s constitutionality is not decided.
Case information
Christopher Beesley and Kristen Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, represented the People.
John Schuck, under appointment, represented Harrell.
Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, wrote the opinion, which Justices Art McKinster and Richard Fields joined.
Case No. FVA015324
Appellate Case No. E080838
Read the opinion here.
