People v. Pfeifer CA4/2

── People v. Pfeifer CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/17/26 P. v. Pfeifer CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E084971 v. (Super.Ct.No. PEF001177) DARRIN SCOTT PFEIFER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John M. Monterosso, Judge. Reversed. Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  Defendant and appellant Darrin Pfeifer contends he was entitled at his resentencing hearing held under Penal Code section 1172.75 to have the trial court consider striking one or more of his prior strikes. (See Pen. Code,1 § 1385; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).) The People concede, and we agree as we briefly explain post, that case law since the trial court’s ruling indicates that Romero motions at section 1172.75 resentencing hearings are not barred as the trial court found, but entitled to full consideration. Defendant is also correct ,as the People concede, that the trial court must recalculate his custody credits at resentencing on remand. BACKGROUND The relevant background is brief. In September 1998, a jury found defendant guilty of three felony counts in resorting to eviction by self-help. The counts in reverse order were assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 3), threatening the victim with great bodily injury or death (§ 422; count 2; see also § 12022, subd. (b) [arming enhancement, a pipe]), and unlawful interference with a telephone line (§ 591; count 1). The trial court found defendant committed three prior strikes and served three prior prison commitments. Defendant’s aggregate sentence totaled 28 years to life, comprised of a “Three Strikes” law indeterminate term of 25 years to life, plus a year for each of defendant’s three prison priors. After Proposition 36 became law, by which the electorate enacted the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012)). 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 (Reform Act) to reform the Three Strikes law, defendant filed a petition under section 1170.126 for recall of his sentence. The trial court denied the petition, finding that defendant’s criminal threats conviction constituted a serious felony, rendering him ineligible for recall of his sentence under section 1170.126. This court affirmed the ruling. (See People v. Pfeifer (May 1, 2014, E059189) [nonpub. opn.]; see generally People v. Terwilligar (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 585, 593-594 [summarizing the Reform Act and § 1170.126].) Following the later enactment of section 1172.75, the trial court held a resentencing hearing at which it struck defendant’s three one-year prison prior terms (former § 667.5, subd. (b))