The California Court of Appeal recently reversed the sentence of Edward Bustillos, who had been convicted of felony elder or dependent adult abuse. This ruling, filed on June 11, 2026, impacts Bustillos and could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, especially regarding changes in sentencing laws.
Bustillos had initially pled no contest to the charges in 2020 and was sentenced to four years in prison, which was suspended in favor of probation. However, after failing to appear in court and violating his probation, he faced a resentencing in 2024. The court's decision to impose the upper term of four years was challenged, leading to this appeal.
Background
Edward Bustillos was charged in 2020 with felony elder or dependent adult abuse under California Penal Code Section 368, subdivision (b)(1). He accepted a plea deal that included a suspended sentence and five years of probation. However, Bustillos did not comply with the terms of his probation, which resulted in a bench warrant being issued against him. After nearly three years, the court recalled the warrant, and Bustillos admitted to violating his probation in May 2024.
During the resentencing, the trial court decided to impose the upper term of four years in prison, which Bustillos appealed. His case raised questions about the application of new sentencing laws that had been enacted after his original plea agreement, specifically Senate Bill No. 567, which changed how upper terms could be imposed.
The Ruling
The California Court of Appeal ruled that Bustillos's sentence should be reversed and sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. The court highlighted that the changes brought by Senate Bill 567, which took effect on January 1, 2022, required that the upper term could only be imposed if certain conditions were met. Specifically, the court stated, "a trial court may only impose the upper term 'when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term.'"
Furthermore, the court referenced the recent California Supreme Court decision in People v. Mitchell, which established that the changes in sentencing laws apply retroactively to cases that are not final on appeal. The court emphasized that the facts used to justify the upper term in Bustillos's case were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by the new law.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Bustillos and potentially for other defendants in similar situations. It reinforces the legal principle that new sentencing laws can affect ongoing cases, particularly when those cases are not finalized. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring that defendants' rights are protected under the latest legal standards.
Moreover, this ruling may set a precedent for future cases where defendants challenge their sentences based on changes in the law. It highlights the evolving nature of sentencing laws in California and the court's willingness to adapt to ensure fairness in the judicial process.
What's Next
The case has been sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. Bustillos has the option to either reaffirm his acceptance of the plea bargain or withdraw it, which could lead to a new trial. The outcome of this case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, especially concerning the application of retroactive sentencing laws.