You found numbers showing that gun enhancements fall harder on people of color in California. Can those numbers get a gun enhancement dismissed at a resentencing hearing? A published California decision filed on October 30, 2026 says statewide numbers alone are not enough. The proof has to meet the same test the Racial Justice Act sets for sentencing.
The case is People v. Savoy, decided by the First District Court of Appeal, Division Three, on appeal from the Alameda County Superior Court. It shows how two laws fit together at sentencing. It also shows the kind of proof a court will expect.
Two Laws That Meet at Sentencing
The first law is the Racial Justice Act, found in Penal Code section 745. It says the state may not seek or obtain a conviction or sentence based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. A person can prove a violation in four ways. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, which means “more likely than not.”
- A judge, lawyer, officer, expert, or juror showed bias or animus because of the person’s race.
- During the case, one of those people used racially discriminatory language in court or otherwise showed racial bias, whether or not on purpose.
- The person was charged with or convicted of a more serious crime than people of other races in similar situations, and such charges or convictions were more often sought against people of the same race in that county.
- The person received a longer or more severe sentence than similar people convicted of the same crime, and those harsher sentences were imposed more often on people of the same race in that county.
The second law is Penal Code section 1385, which lets a judge dismiss a sentencing enhancement “in the furtherance of justice.” An enhancement is extra prison time added on top of the sentence for the crime, such as added time for using a gun. Under section 1385, subdivision (c)(2), a judge must “consider and afford great weight” to proof of certain mitigating facts. The first one on the list ties back to the Racial Justice Act. It applies when using the enhancement “would result in a discriminatory racial impact as described in” the fourth way of proving a violation.
What Happened in People v. Savoy
Frank Savoy, Jr. was convicted in 2011 of murder and other serious crimes. The jury found that he personally and intentionally fired a gun, causing great bodily injury or death. That finding added 25 years to life. His total sentence was 78 years to life.
The law later changed for one-year prison prior enhancements, and Savoy asked to be resentenced. In November 2025, the trial court struck his prison priors and gave him 77 years to life. The judge kept the gun enhancement. The judge found that dismissing it would endanger public safety.
On appeal, Savoy said the judge should have given great weight to proof that gun enhancements have a racially unequal impact. His proof came from a 2021 report by California’s Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal affirmed his sentence.
Why Statewide Numbers Were Not Enough
The court explained that the fourth way of proving a Racial Justice Act violation takes two showings, and Savoy made neither one.
- A comparison to other people. The person must show a longer or more severe sentence than “other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense.” Savoy offered no comparison cases at all. The court said that alone was fatal to his claim.
- A comparison by race in the county. The person must show that harsher sentences for that crime were imposed more often on people of the same race “in the county where the sentence was imposed.” Savoy’s report used statewide data, not county data. It also did not compare people whose conduct and situation were like his.
The court noted that the report found 36 percent of California prisoners with a gun enhancement are Black, while only 8 percent are White. Even so, those numbers did not meet the test. They were statewide, and they did not compare similar cases.
The Mitigating Factor Has No Easier Test
Savoy argued that a mitigating factor under section 1385 should need less proof than a full Racial Justice Act violation. The court said no. It read the statute by its plain meaning. A person must show that the enhancement would actually violate the sentencing part of the Racial Justice Act.
The court also made a related point. Even when a court finds a Racial Justice Act violation, dismissing an enhancement is not automatic. Before judgment, the statute lets a court dismiss an enhancement if that “would be in the interest of justice.” After judgment, the court must vacate the sentence and impose a new one that is no greater than before. But the statute does not require striking any one enhancement.
A Footnote Is Not an Argument
Savoy’s sentencing memo focused on comments the original judge made at sentencing. The statistical argument appeared only in a footnote, and it was not raised at the hearing. The court said a claim raised only in a footnote, without real legal analysis, is generally forfeited. That means it is lost on appeal. The court chose to decide the issue anyway because it is important, but it did not have to.
The lesson is simple. An argument that matters should be made clearly, in the body of the brief and at the hearing, with the evidence attached.
What Strong Evidence Under Section 745 Can Look Like
The statute itself gives guidance. Here are points drawn from its text and from the Savoy opinion.
- Use data from the county where the sentence was imposed, not only statewide numbers.
- Compare similar cases. The statute says “similarly situated” means the factors relevant to charging and sentencing are similar. The comparison group does not have to be identical.
- Show a significant difference. The statute says statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but it is not required to show a significant difference.
- Expect the prosecution to offer race-neutral reasons. The statute asks whether the prosecution can establish race-neutral reasons for the disparity.
- Remember public safety. Under section 1385, proof of a mitigating circumstance weighs greatly in favor of dismissal, unless the court finds that dismissal would endanger public safety.
For background on the law itself, see our posts the RJA in very simple terms and whether the Racial Justice Act can help people convicted of violent crimes. For another recent limit on resentencing, see our post on when a judge can resentence without a change in the law.
Common Questions About the Racial Justice Act at Resentencing
Can statewide statistics ever help?
They can be part of the picture, but under Savoy they are not enough by themselves for this sentencing claim. The statute looks at the county where the sentence was imposed and at similarly situated people convicted of the same crime.
Do I need to name other specific cases?
For the sentencing part of the Racial Justice Act, a person must compare his or her sentence to the sentences of similar people convicted of the same crime. Savoy offered no such cases, and the court called that fatal.
Did the Racial Justice Act change in 2026?
Section 745 has been amended several times, including changes that took effect on January 1, 2026. The Savoy court said those later changes did not affect its analysis. Anyone relying on the statute should read the current version.
When to Call Mines Law Firm
We handle auto accident injury claims, and are accepting clients for those. If you are injured in an auto accident, that is when you should call us at 888-700-0093.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Responsible attorney: Jasmine Mines (State Bar No. 331135), Mines Law Firm, 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.