Filed 4/24/15 P. v. Jaimes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN JAIMES,

Defendant and Appellant.

F068161

(Super. Ct. No. 11CM7119)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S. 

Burns, Judge.

John Hardesty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and John 

G. McLean, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.
2

INTRODUCTION

On February 5, 2013, a second amended information was filed against 

codefendants Julio Perez, Ramon Reyes, and Juan Jaimes.1 The defendants were charged 

with attempting to deter three different correctional officers. Three counts of attempting 

to deter an executive officer were alleged as to each officer. (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a); 

counts 1 [Officer Rocha], 2 [Officer Ramirez], & 3 [Officer Garcia].)2 The information 

alleged one count of battery of a correctional officer (§ 4501.5, count 4 [Officer 

Ramirez]). The information alleged that Jaimes had two prior serious felony convictions 

within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-

(d)). The jury acquitted all three defendants of count 4, found them guilty of counts 1 

and 2, and found them guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor resisting 

arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) in count 3. The jury found the strike allegations against 

Jaimes to be true.

At the sentencing hearing, on May 22, 2013, the trial court took the matter of 

Jaimes’s request to strike one of the prior serious felony allegations, pursuant to People v. 

Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, under submission and sentencing was 

continued.

On August 21, 2013, the trial court denied Jaimes’s request to strike one of the 

prior serious felony convictions, rejecting Jaimes’s argument that because both prior 

convictions were based on the same criminal act and involved a single victim, both 

counts could not be used as separate strike allegations. Instead of having a single prior 

serious felony conviction, the trial court found Jaimes had two prior serious felony 

convictions.

 

1 Perez and Reyes have filed a separate appeal in case No. F067515. 

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Jaimes was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life on count 1 and to a concurrent 

term of 25 years to life on count 2. Both sentences were ordered to be served consecutive 

to the term he was already serving. On appeal, Jaimes contends the trial court erred in 

sentencing him based on two prior strike allegations because they were part of the same 

course of conduct and involved a single victim. In People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 

635, 640-649 (Vargas), the California Supreme Court recently held that a trial court erred 

in failing to strike one of two strikes that were based on the same criminal act and 

involved a single victim. In accordance with Vargas, we reverse appellant’s sentence and 

remand for a new sentencing hearing.

FACTS

Current Offense

During the evening of December 23, 2009, Corcoran State Prison Correctional 

Officers Anthony Rocha and Michael Ramirez were working as floor officers conducting 

cell searches. The officers searched the cell of defendants Jaimes and Perez, cell 113, 

and the defendants proceeded to the day room. When the officers reached the cell of 

inmate Paraza, cell 104, they had the cell unlocked. Paraza was inside the cell. The 

officers told Paraza that one of them was going to first conduct a patdown search of him.

Paraza, who was now just outside of his cell, said, “No.”3 Paraza started to walk 

back into his cell, but Officer Ramirez was standing in the doorway. Because the officers 

were present to conduct a search of the cell, Officer Ramirez put his hand out to block 

Paraza. Paraza grabbed Officer Ramirez’s jumpsuit, at the chest, with both hands. 

Officer Rocha grabbed Paraza’s left hand, or arm, and held Paraza by the wrist. When 

Officer Ramirez began using pepper spray on Paraza, Paraza punched Officer Rocha in 

 

3 Officer Rocha thought Paraza said, “No, I am good with that.”
4

the left eye.4 Paraza then started attacking Officer Ramirez, swinging wildly with both 

fists.

As soon as Officer Rocha was punched, he activated his personal alarm device. 

When activated, the alarm makes noise and sends a signal to officers in central control. 

Officer Rocha wanted to enter the cell to assist Officer Ramirez, but could not because 

there were five inmates coming toward him rather than lying down prone on their 

stomachs. Officer Phillip Garcia yelled at the advancing inmates to get down and fired 

several nonlethal 40-millimeter rounds at the approaching inmates. Officer Rocha was 

never able to enter the cell to assist his partner.

Jaimes, Perez, and Reyes were three of the approaching inmates. Jaimes was 

leading Perez and Reyes. After the first shot was fired, the inmates initially got on their 

stomachs in a prone position. Officer Rocha estimated they were about 100 feet away 

from his position. The inmates got up from their prone position two more times, and 

continued to advance on Officer Rocha before they stopped and remained in a prone 

position. The inmates were coming from different directions and had Officer Rocha 

surrounded. When the five inmates stopped their advance, they were within 20 feet of 

Officer Rocha.5

Prior Offense

Jaimes filed a motion inviting the trial court to strike one of his prior serious 

felony convictions pursuant to Romero. According to the first amended information and 

abstract of judgment from Jaimes’s prior convictions, which were added as exhibits to his 

motion, Jaimes was charged with and convicted of one count of attempted murder 

 

4 Officer Ramirez recalled that it was after Paraza punched Officer Rocha that he 

used pepper spray on Paraza’s face.

5 The fight between Officer Ramirez and Paraza lasted for some time. During the 

altercation, Paraza threw something into the toilet. Officer Ramirez eventually got 

Paraza into physical restraints. Paraza told Officer Ramirez that he had “klavo” on him, a 

slang term for drugs.
5

(§§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)) and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife 

(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Both counts were alleged against the same victim and were based 

on the same criminal act. No other victim was named in the first amended information.6

During the sentencing hearing, the trial court and prosecutor agreed that Jaimes’s 

prior convictions were based on a single act. Nevertheless, the trial court found Jaimes’s 

conduct more criminally culpable and used both prior convictions for attempted murder 

and assault with a deadly weapon as strikes, leading to concurrent sentences of 25 years 

to life on counts 1 and 2.

SENTENCING ERROR

Jaimes contends the trial court erred in denying his request to strike one of his 

prior serious felony convictions because both prior serious felony convictions were based 

on a single act against a single victim. In July 2014, the California Supreme Court held 

in Vargas, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pages 640-649 that when a defendant has been convicted 

of committing a single criminal act on a single victim that results in two felony 

convictions under different statutes, the trial court abuses its sentencing discretion if it 

fails to strike one of the two convictions. The Vargas court reasoned that when the 

offender commits but a single act, he or she does not pose a greater risk to society merely 

because the Legislature has chosen to criminalize the act in different ways. (Id. at p. 

646.)

 

6

In response to Jaimes’s request to strike one of his prior convictions, the 

prosecutor also included a copy of the first amended information and our appellate 

opinion in case No. F044030, affirming Jaimes’s convictions. According to the factual 

summary of our opinion, Jaimes engaged in mutual combat with Samuel Vega. Vega left 

the scene with Reynaldo Mendez in a car driven by Mendez’s wife. Jaimes and his 

compatriots followed in their own vehicle. Eventually, while the Mendez car was 

stopped at a light, Jaimes ran over to the Mendez car and plunged a knife into Reynaldo 

Mendez’s chest through an open window. Jaimes did not assault or attack any other 

occupant of the Mendez car.
6

We are bound by the decisions of our Supreme Court. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. 

Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Jaimes’s two prior serious felony 

convictions were based on a single criminal act on a single victim that led to convictions 

for both attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. We find the trial court 

erred in the instant action when it failed to strike one of Jaimes’s prior serious felony 

convictions based on the same incident and used both felony convictions as strikes to 

impose concurrent sentences of 25 years to life on counts 1 and 2. Accordingly, we 

reverse the trial court’s sentence.

DISPOSITION

Jaimes’s convictions and the true findings by the jury of the prior serious felony 

convictions are affirmed. The trial court’s sentence is vacated and the case is remanded 

for resentencing consistent with People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635.