Filed 2/4/22 P. v. Luengas CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

URIEL ALEXANDER LUENGAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H048788

 (Santa Cruz County

 Super. Ct. No. F13139)

In 2007, defendant Uriel Alexander Luengas pleaded no contest to voluntary 

manslaughter, attempted second degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. He 

admitted he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the 

offense. The trial court imposed a term of 32 years eight months in state prison. In 2020, 

the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the 

Secretary) recommended to the trial court that it recall Luengas’s sentence and resentence 

him under section 1170, subdivision (d). The trial court declined to recall Luengas’s 

sentence on the ground he had entered into a stipulated sentence.

Luengas appeals from the trial court’s order declining to recall his sentence. He 

contends the court failed to exercise its statutory discretion to consider recalling the 

sentence notwithstanding that it was stipulated. The Attorney General, citing newly 

enacted Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 1540), 
2

concedes reversal is required and asks that we remand for a new hearing consistent with 

the change in law.

The Attorney General’s concession is well-taken. We will reverse the order 

declining to recall the sentence and remand for a new hearing consistent with Assembly 

Bill No. 1540.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts of the offense are immaterial. In 2007, Luengas pleaded no contest to 

three counts: count 1—voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a))1; count 2—

attempted second degree robbery (§§ 211, 664); and count 3—conspiracy to commit 

robbery (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). With respect to counts 2 and 3, he admitted he personally

and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the offense. (§ 12022.53, 

subd. (c).)

In accord with a negotiated disposition, the trial court imposed a total term of 

32 years eight months in state prison. The court selected count 1 for the principal term 

and imposed the aggravated term of 11 years for that count. On counts 2 and 3, the court 

imposed consecutive terms equal to one-third the middle terms—eight months and one 

year, respectively. For the firearm enhancement, the court imposed a consecutive term of 

20 years.

In 2020, the Secretary recommended to the trial court that it recall Luengas’s 

sentence and resentence him under section 1170, subdivision (d). The Secretary’s letter 

identified an apparent error in the sentence imposed: The trial court had imposed a full 

consecutive term of 20 years for the firearm enhancement, although the enhancement was 

attached to a subordinate offense, such that the proper term should have been one-third of 

20 years under section 1170.1, subdivision (a). 

1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

The trial court denied resentencing on the ground that “this was an agreed upon 

sentence” and “any defects are waived.”

II. DISCUSSION

The Attorney General concedes reversal and remand is necessary under newly 

enacted Assembly Bill No. 1540. We agree and accept the concession. 

While Luengas’s appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted and the Governor 

signed Assembly Bill No. 1540, which moved the recall and resentencing provision to

section 1170.03 and revised its terms. Section 1170.03 took effect on January 1, 2022. 

Section 1170.03 adds several requirements to the recall and resentencing process, 

including notice, appointment of counsel, a hearing, and a statement of reasons for the 

ruling on the record. (Assem. Bill No. 1540, Stats. 2021, ch. 719, § 3.1, subd. (a)(6), (7), 

& (8).) With respect to the Secretary’s recommendation to reduce a sentence that was the 

product of a negotiated plea agreement, section 1170.03 provides that “the resentencing 

court may, in the interest of justice and regardless of whether the original sentence was 

imposed after a trial or plea agreement, do the following: [¶] (A) Reduce a defendant’s 

term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence.” (§ 1170.03, subd. (a)(3)(A).) The 

new statute also indicates that where the recall and resentencing recommendation is made 

by the Secretary, “[t]here shall be a presumption favoring recall and resentencing of the 

defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable 

risk of danger to public safety, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1170.18.” 

(Assem. Bill No. 1540, Stats. 2021, ch. 719, § 3.1, subd. (b)(2).) 

When the trial court considered the Secretary’s recommendation in this case, there 

was no statutory presumption favoring recall and resentencing. In the new law, the 

Legislature stated its intent to apply the change in law “regardless of the date of the 

offense or conviction,” making it retroactively applicable to Luengas’s conviction. 

(Assem. Bill No. 1540, Stats. 2021, ch. 719, § 1, subd. (i).) Accordingly, we must 
4

remand the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion in light of these 

statutory modifications.

III. DISPOSITION

The order declining to recall Luengas’s sentence is reversed. The matter is 

remanded to the trial court for a hearing in accordance with the newly enacted section 

1170.03 as added by Assembly Bill No. 1540.
_______________________________

Greenwood, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________________

 Danner, J.

______________________________________

 Lie, J.

People v. Luengas

No. H048788