Filed 3/23/21 P. v. Dantignac CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TAURUS DANTIGNAC,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B307106

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA324566)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Robert J. Perry, Judge. Affirmed. 

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________
2

Taurus Dantignac appeals from a postjudgment order 

summarily denying his motion and petition for resentencing in 

which he requested the court exercise its discretion to strike or 

dismiss firearm-use enhancements imposed pursuant to Penal 

Code section 12022.53,

1 in light of Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 

Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2) (Senate Bill 620), effective 

January 1, 2018, and prior serious felony enhancements imposed 

pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1), in light of Senate Bill 

No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, § 1) 

(Senate Bill 1393), effective January 1, 2019. No arguable issues 

relating to this order have been identified following review of the 

record by Dantignac’s appointed appellate counsel or by 

Dantignac in his supplemental letter brief to this court. We also 

have identified no arguable issues after our own independent 

review of the record. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Dantignac’s Conviction and Sentence

A jury convicted Dantignac in 2008 of robbing Deron Tse at 

gunpoint (§ 211; count 1) and taking his automatic teller personal 

identification number with an intent to defraud (§ 484e, subd. (d);

count 2); robbing Daniel Lee (count 3) and taking his automatic 

teller personal identification number with an intent to defraud 

(count 4); and robbing Jane Blanco, using a handgun (count 6), 

and stealing her car (§ 215, subd. (a), carjacking; count 5). In a 

bifurcated bench trial the court found the People had proved 

Dantignac previously committed at least two prior serious felony 

offenses (11 had been specially alleged in the information) 

1 Statutory references are to this code.
3

within the meaning of the three strikes law and section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1). 

The court sentenced Dantignac to 25 years to life on each of 

the six counts, specifying only the term on count 6 as concurrent, 

and imposed two 10-year firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53, 

subd. (b)) and two five-year prior serious felony enhancements 

(§ 667, subd. (a)(1).) The total aggregate state prison sentence 

was 125 years to life plus 30 years.

We affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Dantignac

(July 21, 2009, B210094) [nonpub. opn.].)

2. Dantignac’s Motion for Resentencing

On June 29, 2020 Dantignac, representing himself, filed a 

motion for resentencing, requesting the court exercise its 

discretion under Senate Bill 620 and, concurrently, a petition for 

resentencing, requesting the court exercise its discretion under 

Senate Bill 1393 to strike or dismiss formerly mandatory 

sentencing enhancements for use of a firearm and prior serious 

felony convictions. On July 23, 2020 the court summarily denied 

Dantignac’s requests, stating in its minute order, “The petition 

for resentencing is unmeritorious and is denied.” Dantignac filed 

a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Senate Bill 620 became effective January 1, 2018, 

approximately eight years after Dantignac’s judgment of 

conviction was final. The statutory changes made by that

legislation do not apply to cases where the judgment of conviction

was final before the effective date. (People v. Hernandez (2019)

34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326; People v. Johnson (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th

938, 942.) Similarly, the ameliorative benefits of Senate

Bill 1393, effective January 1, 2019, are retroactive only to cases
4

that were not yet final prior to its effective date. (See People v.

Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 695-699; People v. Hernandez (2020)

55 Cal.App.5th 942, 952, review granted Jan. 27, 2021, S265739;

see generally In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744 [“[i]f the 

amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior 

to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final then, in our 

opinion, it, and not the old statute in effect when the prohibited 

act was committed, applies”].)

In accord with the procedures described in People v. Cole

(2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, review granted October 14, 2020, 

S264278, we appointed counsel to represent Dantignac on appeal. 

After reviewing the record, appointed counsel filed a brief raising 

no issues. Appointed counsel advised Dantignac on October 27,

2020 that he had 30 days to submit a brief or letter raising any 

grounds of appeal, contentions or arguments he wanted the court 

to consider. We thereafter granted Dantignac an extension of 

time to file his supplemental letter brief. 

On January 4, 2021 we received a four-page typed

supplemental brief in which Dantignac did not address his 

petition and motion for resentencing under Senate Bill 620 

and Senate Bill 1393. Instead, Dantignac asserted his 

two convictions for violating section 484e, subdivision (d) 

(acquisition of access card information with the intent to use it 

fraudulently), were subject to redesignation as misdemeanors 

under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act 

(§ 1170.18) and People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903. That 

issue must be presented to the superior court in the first 

instance. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a) [petition for recall of sentence to 

be made “before the trial court that entered the judgment of 

conviction in his or her case”].) 
5

Because no cognizable legal issues have been raised by 

Dantignac’s appellate counsel or by Dantignac or identified in our 

independent review of the record, the order denying the motion

and petition for resentencing is affirmed. (See People v. Cole, 

supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1039-1040, review granted; see also 

People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503; see generally 

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment order denying Dantignac’s motion and 

petition is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.