Filed 8/20/26 P. v. Alley CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F089867
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. F06906977)
v.
RODGER DALE ALLEY, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A.
Kelley, Judge.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Ivan P. Marrs and Dina
Petrushenko, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and Detjen, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and defendant Rodger Dale Alley, Jr., (appellant) was convicted of
first degree murder with two prior prison term enhancements. He was sentenced to
two years plus 25 years to life, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
In 2025, the trial court recalled appellant’s sentence pursuant to Penal Code1
section 1172.75 because it included prior prison term enhancements that are now invalid.
The court dismissed the prior prison term enhancements and again sentenced appellant to
25 years to life, and stayed or suspended the amounts of any fines or fees that were
unpaid.
On appeal, appellant and the People agree the abstract of judgment must be
amended to show that the restitution fine was vacated and the trial court security fee was
stayed. We also order corrections on the minute order from the resentencing hearing. As
amended, the judgment is affirmed.
FACTS2
In June 2006, the body of Courtney Rice was found in the bed of a pickup truck
that had been abandoned. “The pathologist determined Rice had been dead for two to
three days. The handcuff marks and contusions on her wrists and ankles indicated she
had been bound for some time, and the marks occurred before death. There were clearing
marks around the victim’s mouth, consistent with electrical or some type of tape. There
was no evidence of strangulation. [¶] There was a hemorrhage below the right side of
1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 In appellant’s opening brief, counsel cited the probation report for the factual
background of this case. In respondent’s brief, the Attorney General cited this court’s
nonpublished opinion in appellant’s prior appeal, People v. Alley (May 20, 2022,
F083008) [nonpub. opn.] (Ally I), for the factual and procedural background; appellant
did not object to those references. We similarly cite to our prior nonpublished opinion
for the same limited purpose of the procedural history and factual background. (People v.
Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 426, fn. 1; Evid. Code, §§ 451, subd. (a), 452,
subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).)
2.
Rice’s scalp consistent with blunt force trauma inflicted prior to death, but it was not the
cause of death. An injury to her right lip was consistent with blunt trauma, consistent
with a towel being pushed into her face to try and smother her.” (Alley I, supra,
F083008.) “The pathologist determined the [Rice]’s cause of death was ‘probable
asphyxia due to binding and gagging,’ meaning a lack of oxygen or an increase in the
carbon dioxide level in the blood.” (Ibid.)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2008, appellant was convicted after a jury trial of the first degree murder of
Rice. He was sentenced to two years for prior prison term enhancements plus 25 years to
life for murder. The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b))
and suspended the parole revocation fine in the same amount (§ 1202.45), and also
imposed a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8). The parties stipulated to victim restitution
of $7,500 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(2)). This court affirmed the judgment on appeal. (Alley I,
supra, F083008.)
In 2021, the trial court denied appellant’s petition for resentencing of his
first degree murder conviction pursuant to former section 1170.95, later renumbered as
section 1172.6. The court found appellant failed to state a prima facie case for relief and
was ineligible for resentencing because the record of conviction showed he was convicted
as “ ‘a principal in the crime or a direct aider’ ” who acted “ ‘willfully, deliberately, and
with intent to kill the victim.’ ” This court affirmed the ruling on appeal. (Alley I, supra,
F083008.)
SECTION 1172.75 RECALL AND RESENTENCING
On December 1, 2023, the trial court stated appellant had been identified by the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as eligible for recall and resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.75.3
3 “Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate
Bill 136) (Stats. 2019, ch. 590) amended section 667.5 by limiting the prior prison term
3.
On May 14, 2025, the trial court convened the section 1172.75 recall and
resentencing hearing.
Defense counsel stated the prosecutor was going to dismiss the two years imposed
for the prior prison term enhancements but would not dismiss appellant’s first degree
murder conviction. However, appellant could “either take the two years reduction and
get sentenced today, or you can ask for full resentencing” at a later time.
Appellant addressed the trial court and said that he was “fine to take the two prior
prison priors off,” and he had no problem with that. Appellant said he did not want to
give up his rights to any other sentence reductions that he would be eligible for, because
he was going to file a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.1 and Assembly
Bill No. 600 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.). Both the court and defense counsel explained to
appellant that the other petition was not the subject of this hearing and would constitute a
separate matter.4
enhancement to only prior terms for sexually violent offenses. [Citations.]
Enhancements based on prior prison terms served for other offenses became legally
invalid.” (People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 380.) “Later, in 2021, the
Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 483). This
bill sought to make the changes implemented by Senate Bill 136 retroactive. [Citation.]
It took effect on January 1, 2022, and added former section 1171.1, now section 1172.75,
to the Penal Code.” (Ibid.)
4 “Under section 1172.1, a trial court may recall a sentence and resentence a
defendant ‘at any time’ upon the recommendation of various designated correctional or
law enforcement authorities. [Citation.] The trial court may also do so ‘on its own
motion’ within 120 days of the date of commitment. [Citation.] Pursuant to an
amendment effective January 1, 2024, a trial court now also has jurisdiction to recall a
sentence and resentence a defendant on its own motion ‘at any time if the applicable
sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new
statutory authority or case law.’ ” (People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 992.)
“A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this
section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not
required to respond.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (c).)
4.
Appellant said he would “take the two years off” and waive his right to a full
resentencing hearing. Appellant asked if he could get some “old restitution fines” off his
record, and said he had already paid victim restitution.
The trial court dismissed the two prior prison term enhancements, and resentenced
appellant to 25 years to life for count 1, first degree murder. The court suspended or
stayed any unpaid amounts of the previously imposed court fees and the restitution fine.
The court stated it would not suspend the victim restitution order.
On May 22, 2025, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s
order on May 14, 2025.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, appellant has not challenged the trial court’s resentencing order.
Instead, he notes the court granted his motion to suspend or stay any unpaid fines and
fees, and requests correction of the record to reflect that order.
Appellant further notes the abstract of judgment filed on May 19, 2025, after the
resentencing hearing, erroneously showed the trial court imposed the restitution fine of
$10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and the court security fee of $20 (§ 1465.8).
Appellant contends, and the People agree, the trial court must prepare an amended
abstract of judgment to correct clerical errors that are inconsistent with the court’s
rulings. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
The parties further agree that while the trial court intended to stay or suspend any
unpaid balance of the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) $10,000 restitution fine, that fine
must be vacated pursuant to section 1465.9, subdivision (d).5 The parties also agree the
5 Section 1465.9, subdivision (d) states: “Upon the expiration of 10 years after the
date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to [s]ection 1202.4, the balance, including
any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a
judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.”
5.
amended abstract must show the court security fee was suspended. We order preparation
of an amended abstract of judgment.
We also order preparation of an amended minute order for the May 14, 2025
resentencing hearing. The minute order erroneously states appellant was convicted and
sentenced to 25 years to life for “[s]econd [d]egree” murder. It must be corrected to state
he was convicted and sentenced for first degree murder.
The May 14, 2025 minute order also states that the “[b]alance of fines and fees are
suspended, except victim restitution.” It must be corrected to state the section 1202.4,
subdivision (b) restitution fine of $10,000 was vacated pursuant to section 1465.9,
subdivision (d), the court security fee was suspended, and victim restitution was not
vacated, stayed, or suspended.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is ordered to amend the minute order for the May 14, 2025,
resentencing hearing to state that appellant was convicted and sentenced for first degree
murder, the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine of $10,000 was vacated
pursuant to section 1465.9, subdivision (d), the court security fee was suspended, and
victim restitution was not vacated, stayed, or suspended.
The trial court is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment for the
May 14, 2025, resentencing hearing to show the $10,000 restitution fine was vacated
(§ 1465.9, subd. (d)) and the court security fee of $20 was suspended.
The clerk of the superior court shall forward a certified copy of the amended
abstract of judgment to the appropriate entities.
As corrected, the judgment is affirmed.
6.