Filed 1/21/21 P. v. Campos CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOEL CAMPOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

B303422

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. TA134943

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Sean D. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.

Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________
2

BACKGROUND

In 2015 a jury convicted defendant and appellant

Joel Campos of second degree robbery. The jury found true 

allegations that Campos personally used a firearm in the 

commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b))

1

and that he committed the crime for the benefit of or at the 

direction of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). 

The trial court sentenced Campos to 23 years in the state prison, 

consisting of the midterm of three years for the robbery plus 

ten years each for the gun and gang enhancements. In May 

2017, we affirmed Campos’s judgment of conviction. (People v. 

Campos (May 25, 2017, B264148) [nonpub. opn.] (Campos I).)

On September 30, 2019, Campos filed in the trial court a 

pleading entitled “Motion for Modification of Sentence Pursuant 

to PC § 1170.1(F), § 12022.5(a), § 12022.53, and § 1385.” The 

motion bordered on the unintelligible. Campos contended the 

trial court impermissibly imposed consecutive 10-year terms 

for the firearm and gang enhancements, in violation of section 

1170.1, subdivision (f) and People v. Le (2015) 61 Cal.4th 416 (Le). 

He cited Senate Bill No. 620 and the amendments that legislation 

made to sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. Campos then discussed

trial courts’ authority to strike prior strikes under People v.

Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.2 He also sought

to reargue the facts of his case.3

1 References to statutes are to the Penal Code.

2 There was no allegation in this case that Campos had any 

strike priors.

3 For example, Campos stated “a firearm was allegedly seen 

in the waistband of his pants.” In fact, according to the probation 

officer’s report, the victim told police Campos “removed a 
3

On October 22, 2019, the trial court denied Campos’s 

motion. The court’s minute order states, “In this matter 

judgment is already final and thus sentence cannot be modified.”

Campos appealed and we appointed counsel to represent 

him. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief 

raising no issues and asking this court to “conduct a review 

according [to] the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 

211 Cal.App.4th 496.” Counsel notified Campos that he had filed

a Serrano brief and that Campos could file a supplemental brief. 

On October 27, 2020 Campos filed a supplemental brief. Because 

Campos filed a supplemental brief, we follow the procedures

set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) rather 

than those in Serrano.

DISCUSSION

Campos’s supplemental brief essentially repeats the 

arguments in his “motion for modification,” citing Le and 

Senate Bill No. 620. Campos also challenges the sufficiency 

of the evidence at trial on the firearm and gang enhancements. 

Campos questions how the jury could find the gang enhancement 

true “when there is no gang on [victim Juan] Melo’s side.” 

Campos says he “has done a lot of growing up” while in prison. 

Campos’s contentions are without merit.

Our opinion affirming Campos’s conviction summarized the 

facts of his crime. In short, victim Juan Melo left a train station 

on his way home from work. Campos approached Melo and asked 

him where he was from and why he was wearing a red shirt. 

Melo replied he was from “ ‘[n]owhere’ ” and the red shirt was 

part of his work uniform. Campos, “using a gun, robbed Melo 

of several hundred dollars.” (Campos I.)

stainless steel semi-automatic from his waistband and pointed it 

at the victim.”
4

Campos told Melo not to call the police or Campos would 

shoot him. Melo called the police anyway. In his 911 call, 

Melo said “ ‘[i]t look[ed] like [the perpetrator] might’ve been

from Grape Street and, uh, Mexican Grape Street.’ ” Melo told 

responding officers that Campos was wearing a purple shirt. 

The People’s gang expert testified at trial that the Southside 

Watts Barrio Grape gang was a Hispanic criminal street gang 

whose members often wore purple clothing. (Campos I.)

Section 12022.53, subdivision (b) provides that “any person 

who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), 

personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional 

and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 

years.” Robbery is one of the felonies specified in subdivision (a). 

(§ 12022.53, subd. (a)(4).) Section 12022.53, subdivision (e) 

and its subparts provide that that firearm enhancement applies 

to a person who is a principal in a crime, in which a gang 

enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b) has been 

found true, who personally used a firearm in the commission 

of the offense. Section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) provides that 

any person convicted of a felony committed for a gang in violation 

of that section shall “be punished by an additional term of 10 

years” if the felony was a violent felony.

Accordingly, because (1) Campos was the sole perpetrator 

of the robbery (and so was by definition a principal), (2) he used 

a gun in the robbery, (3) the jury found the gang allegation true,

and (4) robbery is a violent felony, the trial court correctly 

imposed consecutive 10-year terms for the firearm enhancement 

and the gang enhancement.

Campos misunderstands our Supreme Court’s decision 

in Le as well as section 1170.1, subdivision (f). Le applied 

the high court’s earlier decision in People v. Rodriguez (2009) 

47 Cal.4th 501 that a person’s single act of personally using 
5

a firearm during the commission of a felony could not be used 

both to elevate the offense to a serious or violent felony and 

as the basis for a firearm enhancement. (Le, supra, 61 Cal.4th 

416.) In other words, when a jury finds true both a use-of-afirearm enhancement and a gang enhancement, and the crime 

is a violent felony owing to the use of a gun, section 1170.1, 

subdivision (f) requires the court to impose only the greater 

of the two enhancements. (See Couzens et al., Sentencing 

California Crimes (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 21:7.)

Here, the felony of which Campos was convicted—robbery

—is not a violent felony owing to the use of a gun. It is a violent 

felony whether committed with a weapon or without one. The 

Penal Code provisions listed above provide for full consecutive

10-year terms for the gun use and the gang enhancement. 

(People v. Brookfield (2009) 47 Cal.4th 583, 590 [“A defendant 

who personally uses or discharges a firearm in the commission 

of a gang-related offense is subject to both the increased 

punishment provided for in section 186.22 and the increased 

punishment provided for in section 12022.53.” (Italics omitted.)].)

Campos’s reliance on Senate Bill No. 620 also misses 

the mark. Effective January 1, 2018, Senate Bill No. 620

(Stats. 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1-2) amended sections 12022.5 and 

12022.53 to give courts discretion in the interest of justice to 

strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (c); 

12022.53, subd. (h).) Senate Bill No. 620 applies to cases not 

yet final on the law’s effective date. (People v. Hargis (2019) 33 

Cal.App.5th 199, 209-210; People v. Harris (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th

657, 659, 661-662.) As the trial court noted, Campos’s case was 

final before January 1, 2018.

We have conducted an independent review of the entire 

record. We are satisfied that Campos’s counsel has fully 

complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues 
6

exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Joel Campos’s “Motion 

for Modification of Sentence.”

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.