The California Court of Appeal has ordered a full resentencing for Marco Antonio Berrelleza, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The court found errors in the trial court's handling of special circumstances, presentence conduct credits, and a parole revocation fine. This ruling affects Berrelleza and could have implications for similar cases involving murder convictions.

In 1989, police discovered the body of a woman in a residence, covered in blood. An autopsy revealed that the victim had been beaten and raped. Years later, fingerprints and palm prints collected from the crime scene matched those of Berrelleza. He was charged with murder in 2022, and the prosecution later filed special circumstance allegations related to the crime.

The case went to trial in 2024, where a jury convicted Berrelleza of first-degree murder and found two special circumstances to be true. During sentencing, the trial court stated it had no discretion regarding the special circumstances and sentenced Berrelleza to life without parole. The court also imposed various fines and assessments, including a stayed $300 parole revocation fine, but did not award any presentence conduct credit, citing the murder conviction.

On appeal, Berrelleza raised several issues. He argued that the trial court misunderstood its discretion regarding the special circumstances, improperly denied presentence conduct credit, and should not have imposed the parole revocation fine. The court ruled that the trial court had erred in stating it had no discretion to strike the special circumstances. The court noted that under California law, a trial court could strike special circumstances for crimes committed before the enactment of certain statutes.

The court stated, "The trial court expressly indicated it was unaware of its discretion to strike a special circumstance." This misunderstanding of the law led to the decision to remand the case for a full resentencing. The appellate court emphasized that defendants are entitled to informed discretion during sentencing.

Additionally, the court found that the trial court had incorrectly denied Berrelleza presentence conduct credit. The court explained that while section 2933.2 denies conduct credit for murder convictions, that statute was enacted after the date of Berrelleza's crime. Therefore, it could not be applied retroactively. The appellate court ordered that the trial court must calculate and award presentence conduct credit based on the law in effect at the time of the 1989 offense.

Furthermore, the court agreed with Berrelleza's argument regarding the parole revocation fine. The fine was imposed under a statute that was enacted after the crime occurred, which violated Berrelleza's ex post facto rights. The court ruled that the fine must not be imposed on remand.

Finally, the appellate court noted an error in the abstract of judgment, which incorrectly stated that Berrelleza was convicted by plea instead of by jury. The court ordered that this be corrected in the amended abstract of judgment.

The ruling has significant implications for Berrelleza and potentially for other defendants in similar situations. By clarifying the trial court's discretion regarding special circumstances and conduct credits, the court has set a precedent that could influence future cases.

Looking ahead, the trial court will hold a resentencing hearing to address the issues raised by the appellate court. This will give Berrelleza an opportunity to have his sentence reviewed and potentially modified. The case number for this appeal is C102681.