Background
A jury convicted Mickael Deandre Webb of two counts of forcible sexual penetration under Penal Code section 289(a)(1)(A) and one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury under section 245(a)(1), with true findings that he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. The trial court also found he had one prison prior. Originally sentenced to an aggregate term of 30 years to life plus one year, Webb was resentenced in 2015 to 50 years to life plus one year after the court found the prior sentence unauthorized, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that new sentence in 2017.
In 2023, the trial court identified Webb as potentially eligible for resentencing relief under section 1172.75. After reviewing his rehabilitation materials, his motion to strike the great bodily injury enhancements, the People's opposition, and his C-file, the court struck the invalid one-year prison prior and reduced his restitution fine but declined to further reduce his sentence, concluding he posed a danger to public safety. Webb appealed, arguing his sentence must be reduced under In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise that argument at resentencing, and that a clerical error in the resentencing minute order required correction.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected Webb's notice argument. Although the February 2011 information cited outdated subdivisions of section 667.61 because it failed to account for the Chelsea King Child Predator Prevention Act's relocation of the great bodily injury allegation from subdivision (e) to subdivision (d), the information expressly alleged Webb personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offenses and noted the possibility of a 25-years-to-life term. Distinguishing In re Vaquera, where nothing tied the victim's age to a One Strike sentencing enhancement, the court explained that the information here unambiguously informed Webb the prosecution intended to enhance his sentence under the One Strike law for inflicting great bodily injury, which carries a mandatory 25-years-to-life term when properly pled and proved. Citing People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, the court held the incorrect statutory references were overcome by factual allegations adequate to inform Webb of his exposure. Because it upheld the sentence, the court did not reach Webb's law-of-the-case or ineffective-assistance arguments.
The court accepted the People's concession that the September 20, 2024 minute order contained a clerical error wrongly indicating Webb's count 3 conviction was for violating section 288(a) rather than section 289(a). Although the trial court had previously granted a motion to correct the error and issued an amended abstract of judgment correcting post-sentencing credits, it twice failed to correct the minute order itself. The Court of Appeal therefore remanded with directions to correct the minute order to reflect that Webb was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a violation of section 289(a) as to count 3, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- An information that cites incorrect subdivisions of the One Strike law can still satisfy due process if its factual allegations adequately inform the defendant that the prosecution seeks a 25-years-to-life sentence based on great bodily injury.
- The court distinguished In re Vaquera because, unlike the victim's age in that case, Webb's great bodily injury allegation was expressly tied to One Strike sentencing in the information.
- Because the notice challenge failed, the court expressly declined to decide Webb's law-of-the-case and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel arguments.
- The remand is limited to correcting a clerical error in the September 20, 2024 minute order identifying the wrong statute for count 3; the 50-years-to-life sentence otherwise stands.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the California Supreme Court's In re Vaquera fair-notice framework to a common pleading problem: an information filed after the 2010 Chelsea King Act that still cited the pre-amendment subdivisions of section 667.61. It confirms that outdated statutory citations are not fatal where the charging document clearly alleges the factual circumstance supporting the enhancement and discloses the potential 25-years-to-life exposure.
The opinion also illustrates the limited relief available on this section 1172.75 resentencing appeal: the invalid prison prior was struck and the restitution fine reduced below, but the danger-to-public-safety finding and the underlying One Strike terms were left intact, with only a ministerial correction ordered on remand.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket