Filed 11/25/20 P. v. Rios CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANK C. RIOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D076589

 (Super. Ct. No. SCE388454)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with 

directions.

Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve 

Oetting and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

A jury convicted Frank C. Rios with possession of a controlled 

substance while armed with a loaded firearm (Health and Saf. Code, 
2

§ 11370.1, subd. (a); count 1); felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,1

§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2); and felon in possession of ammunition 

(§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 3). Rios admitted to four prison priors. The 

court sentenced Rios to prison for eight years.

Rios appeals, contending substantial evidence does not support his 

conviction under each offense. In addition, he asserts that his conviction for 

count 3, felon in possession of ammunition, should have been stayed under 

section 654 because it involved possession of ammunition that was found 

loaded in the handgun, the possession of which was charged in counts 1 

and 2. In addition, Rios asserts that his four one-year prison prior terms 

should be stricken because Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) 

amended section 667.5, subdivision (b), to limit punishment to sexually 

violent offenses, and that the amendment applies retroactively to him. 

While this appeal was pending, we granted Rios’s motion to file a 

supplemental brief. In that brief, Rios claims that the trial court erred by 

refusing to instruct the jury on simple possession of methamphetamine, 

arguing simple possession is a lesser included offense of count 1, Health and 

Safety Code section 11370.1, possession of a firearm by possessor of a 

controlled substance.

The People filed a supplemental brief, agreeing that simple possession 

of methamphetamine was a lesser included offense of count 1 based on the 

accusatory pleading test. However, they contend the court did not err in 

failing to give the instruction because substantial evidence did not support 

the simple possession instruction, and there was no evidence that the offense 

was less than charged. Further, the People claim even if we determine the 

instruction should have been given to the jury, any error was harmless.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
3

We conclude substantial evidence supports Rios’s convictions. Also, 

even if the trial court erred by failing to provide an instruction for simple 

possession, that error was harmless. However, as the People concede, both of 

Rios’s sentencing claims are well taken. We agree with the parties that the 

court should have stayed Rios’s term imposed under count 3 and Senate Bill 

No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) applies retroactively, thus Rios’s four one-year 

prison priors must be stricken. We thus reverse the judgment on this limited 

ground and remand the matter to the superior court to amend the abstract of 

judgment accordingly. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2019, San Diego County Sheriff’s Deputies Lucas 

Parrott and Matthew Andrade were patrolling a residential area of Spring 

Valley around 2:15 p.m. when Parrott noticed at least two individuals 

standing in front of a residence on Felicita Avenue. While Andrade was 

talking to a woman who was walking her dog, Parrott noticed two individuals

standing outside the residence run. 

Then, after speaking with a resident of the home the individuals were 

in front of, Andrade and Parrott drove northbound up Felicita Avenue to the 

end of the block, turned the corner, and ultimately ended up on Concepcion 

Avenue, a street directly next to and parallel to Felicita Avenue. 

Once on Concepcion Avenue, the deputies saw Rios walking and asked 

him to “come here.”2 Rios approached the deputies after a slight delay,

during which time, the deputies lost sight of Rios for several seconds as Rios 

walked behind a car parked between him and the deputies. Rios walked back 

from behind the vehicle only after Parrott caught Rios’s attention by calling 

2 Andrade testified that about a minute had passed since he had seen the 

two individuals run away from the group and when the deputies saw Rios.
4

out to him again. After Rios approached the deputies, they noticed that Rios

was sweaty and that fresh mud covered his body, pants, and other clothing. 

Rios also appeared nervous and out of breath, like he had just been running. 

He was wearing a black long-sleeve T-shirt, blue jeans, and a baseball hat. 

At the time of the incident, Rios was a convicted felon. During the deputies’

contact with Rios, a witness approached and spoke with the deputies. The 

deputies then detained Rios. 

Shortly after detaining Rios and beginning their investigation, the 

deputies discovered a bag of methamphetamine on the ground behind the 

parked car where the deputies had seen Rios walking moments earlier. The 

baggie was no more than 10 feet from where the deputies detained Rios. 

After receiving additional information from another witness, the deputies 

began to investigate for weapons in the area. The deputies began their 

search by retracing the likely path Rios had taken. During their search, both

the deputies came across an open, blue recycling bin located approximately 

30 to 40 feet up the street from where the deputies detained Rios. 

Information obtained by one of the witnesses prompted both the deputies to 

look inside the recycling bin. When Andrade looked inside of the blue 

recycling bin and removed a white box, he found an operable, black SCCY 

9-millimeter handgun hidden underneath. The gun had fresh mud on it and 

was located towards the bottom of the bin. The handgun contained live

rounds of ammunition in the magazine. 

Douglas D., a witness who lives on Concepcion Avenue, testified that he 

was working in his garage around the same time that day when he heard a 

loud noise in his backyard. He looked through his back door and saw Rios

crouched down by the rear fence in his backyard, a fence that backed up to a 

residence on Felicita Avenue. The ground underneath where Rios had landed 
5

was muddy and covered in leaves. When Douglas walked into his backyard, 

Rios ran along the fence line, climbed over the fence at the front of Douglas’s

property, and exited the property, headed northbound on Concepcion Avenue. 

At trial, Douglas positively identified Rios as the individual he saw in his 

backyard and testified that Rios was wearing dark clothing and a ball cap at 

that time. 

At around the same time that Douglas saw Rios in his backyard, 

another witness, Stephan H., who also lived on Concepcion Avenue, looked

out his bedroom window that looks out across the street. Stephan saw an 

individual walk down Concepcion, stop by a sewer drain, and stare into it for 

several seconds. As the individual walked out of his view, Stephan went 

outside and looked around the corner to see the same individual briefly 

standing by a blue recycling bin and trash can approximately 30 yards away. 

The trashcan and recycling bin were located right across the street from 

Stephan’s house. About ten minutes later, Stephan saw the deputies cruising 

and then walking up and down Concepcion. He approached the deputies to 

offer information about the individual. Stephan did not see anyone else near 

the blue recycling bin between seeing the individual and the deputies. 

At trial, Stephan could not positively identify Rios as the individual he 

saw but testified that the individual was “between five-eight and five-nine”

wearing a ball cap and T-shirt. Stephan testified that he believed the shirt 

the individual was wearing was white and looked clean. 

The parties stipulated that at the time of the incident, Rios was a 

convicted felon. They further stipulated that the 9-millimeter handgun was 

tested and found to be operable. Criminalists were unable to match Rios’s 

DNA to the handgun, nor could they develop fingerprints from the gun or 
6

ammunition. The baggie found near where Rios was arrested contained 

1.38 grams of methamphetamine. 

DISCUSSION

I

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 

A. Rios’s Contentions

Rios asserts the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for

possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm, felon 

in possession of a firearm, and felon in possession of ammunition. We 

disagree. 

B. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

In evaluating Rios’s contention, we apply a substantial evidence 

standard of review to assess the sufficiency of the evidence. We review the 

entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine 

whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is 

reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact 

could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Steele 

(2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1249 (Steele).) This standard of review is the same 

for cases in which the People rely mainly on circumstantial evidence.

(People v. Williams (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587, 623.) We presume in support 

of the judgment the existence of every fact that could reasonably be deduced 

from the evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) We ask 

whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

judgment, any rational trier of fact could have found the allegations to be 

true beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 

307, 319.) A reversal for insufficient evidence “ ‘ “is unwarranted unless it 

appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial 
7

evidence to support’ ” the jury’s verdict. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. 

Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87.)

“[E]very person who unlawfully possesses any amount

of . . . a substance containing methamphetamine . . . while armed with 

a loaded, operable firearm” is guilty of a felony. (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11370.1, subd. (a).) “ ‘[A]rmed with’ means having available for immediate 

offensive or defense use.” (Ibid.) 

“This definition is consistent with the well-established construction of 

‘armed’ given to firearm enhancements . . . [citation]. [Citations.] In order to 

be ‘armed’ within the meaning of these statutes, a defendant need not 

physically carry the firearm on his or her person.” (People v. Superior 

Court (Martinez) (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 979, 989-990.) Rather, if the

firearm was found in close proximity to drugs in a place frequented by the 

defendant, a jury may reasonably infer from these facts “ ‘(1) that the 

defendant knew of the firearm’s presence, (2) that its presence together with 

the drugs was not accidental or coincidental, and (3) that, at some point

during the period of illegal drug possession, the defendant was present with 

both the drugs and the firearm and thus that the firearm was available for 

the defendant to put to immediate use to aid in the drug possession.’ ”

(People v. Pitto (2008) 43 Cal.4th 228, 238, citing People v. Bland (1995) 10 

Cal.4th 991, 1002-1003.) If not refuted, these inferences are sufficient to 

support a determination the defendant was “ ‘armed with’ ” a firearm. (Pitto, 

at p. 238; Bland, at p. 1003.)

C. Analysis

In this case, the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to sustain 

Rios’s conviction of possession of a controlled substance while armed with a 

loaded firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, and felon in possession of 
8

ammunition. Here, the jury reasonably could conclude Rios possessed the 

baggie of methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm. 

Moments after arriving at Felicita Avenue, the deputies saw two

individuals run. Within minutes of seeing the individuals run, the deputies 

saw Rios walking on Concepcion Avenue, the street directly next to Felicita 

Avenue. When the deputies contacted Rios, Rios appeared nervous and out of 

breath, like he had just been running. 

Furthermore, there was a moment in time, between when the deputies 

first approached Rios on Concepcion Avenue and when Rios finally walked 

toward the deputies, that the deputies lost sight of Rios because he walked 

behind a parked car. Minutes later, the deputies discovered a baggie of 

methamphetamine on the ground next to that very same parked car, no more 

than 10 feet away from where Rios was detained. 

Rios points out that the baggie of methamphetamine found under the 

vehicle was not covered in mud, while his hands, fingernails, and clothes, 

were covered in mud. This point suggests that one could reasonably conclude 

that the baggie of methamphetamine did not belong to Rios. However, this 

potential discrepancy merely goes to the weight of the evidence, as a jury 

could also reasonably conclude that a man, although covered in mud, can 

keep a small plastic baggie free of mud by means such as concealing it within 

his pocket. When the jury is presented with circumstantial evidence they 

must decide “which reasonable inference or inferences, if any, to draw from 

the evidence,” and here it is clear the jury decided on the inference that Rios 

was in possession of the baggie of methamphetamine. (People v. 

Livingston (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1145, 1166.) 

Within the 30 minutes following Rios’s detainment and the discovery of 

the baggie of methamphetamine, the deputies found an operable, black SCCY 
9

9-millimeter handgun, containing live rounds of ammunition, hidden inside 

of an open blue recycling bin left on Concepcion Avenue. This recycling bin 

was located about 30 to 40 feet away from where Rios was ultimately 

detained. There was fresh mud on both Rios and the gun. 

There were two witnesses who live on Concepcion Avenue that testified 

at Rios’s trial. One witness, Douglas D., testified that at around the same 

time of the events above, he had seen Rios crouched in a muddy spot by a 

fence at the rear of his property, property that backed up to a residence on 

Felicita Avenue. Douglas testified that he saw Rios exit his property and 

head northbound on Concepcion Avenue. 

The other witness, Stephan H., testified that at around the same time 

as these events, an individual walking down Concepcion Avenue caught his 

attention when the individual stopped by a sewer drain and stared into it for 

several seconds. Seconds later, Stephan observed that same individual 

standing by a blue recycling bin and trash can. Stephan testified he did not 

see anyone else near the blue recycling bin between seeing the individual and

seeing the deputies. 

Rios asserts that although Douglas could identify him at trial as the 

individual he saw in his yard, Stephan testified that the individual he saw 

near the blue recycling bin was wearing a white shirt and a baseball cap and

looked clean. Rios points out that Stephan’s description of the individual he 

saw contradicts other evidence showing Rios as being covered in mud and 

wearing dark clothing. Rios contends that Stephan’s inability to identify Rios 

as the individual he saw near the recycling bin undermines the sufficiency of 

the evidence proving Rios possessed a firearm.

To the contrary, Stephan’s inability to identify Rios as the individual he 

saw merely goes to the weight of his testimony. (See People v. Mohamed 
10

(2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 515, 522.) The fact that Stephan did not see the face 

of the individual he saw near the recycling bin does not preclude the 

existence of sufficient support for the jury’s verdict. (Ibid.)

Furthermore, Rios’s conviction of possession of a loaded firearm was 

not solely supported by Stephan’s testimony. We review the entire record in 

the light most favorable to the judgment, which means Stephan’s testimony 

comprises only one part of our analysis. (Steele, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1230.) The 

entirety of the evidence in the record shows that all the relevant events 

occurred at around the same time, on the same street, in a neighborhood in 

Spring Valley. The deputies found both the baggie of methamphetamine and 

the firearm during their search that retraced what they believed was the 

likely path Rios had taken. Douglas positively identified Rios as the man 

who jumped over his back fence, into a muddy corner of his yard, and fled 

onto Concepcion Avenue. The evidence shows both Rios and the gun were 

coated in fresh mud. The gun was found in a blue recycling bin in proximity,

30 to 40 feet, from where Rios was ultimately detained. 

Stephan’s testimony that he had seen a man standing by a blue 

recycling bin corroborates this evidence. Rios contends that there is no 

evidence showing that the recycling bin referenced in Stephan’s testimony 

was the same bin the gun was found in. Contrary to Rios’s assertion, the lack 

of evidence showing that the recycling bin referenced in Stephan’s testimony 

was the same as the bin the gun was found in, again, merely speaks to the 

weight of the witness’s testimony. Moreover, there was no evidence 

presented rebutting the fact that the two recycling bins identified were

actually the same bin, leaving room for a reasonable inference to be made 

that the bin identified by Stephan and the bin in which the deputies found 

the gun were one in the same. 
11

Rios further claims that the fact that the witness’s credibility was not 

questioned also undermines the sufficiency of the evidence. However, it is 

not this court’s job to evaluate the credibility of a witness on appeal.

(People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 162 (Letner and Tobin).) 

On appeal “ ‘[c]onflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable 

suspicion do not justify reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province 

of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the 

truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.’ ” (Id. at 

pp. 161-162.)

In summary, based on the entirety of the evidence presented, we 

conclude that the jury reasonably could have found that Rios possessed, and 

subsequently discarded, both the baggie of methamphetamine and the 

firearm. The fact that the jury’s findings might also be reconciled with a 

contrary finding does not undermine the sufficiency of the evidence. (Letner

and Tobin, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 162.)

II

JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE

Although we conclude that substantial evidence supports Rios’s 

convictions, we still must consider his claim that the trial court committed 

prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense 

of simple possession. The People concede that simple possession is a lesser 

included offense of count 1 under the accusatory pleading test. However, 

they argue any error in failing to provide the jury instruction was harmless. 

On the unique facts of this case, we agree with the People. 

The law governing a trial court’s duty to instruct the jury on lesser 

included offenses, and the standard of review that this court applies in 
12

reviewing a trial court’s decision regarding whether to give such an 

instruction, are well established:

“Instructions on lesser included offenses must be given 

when there is substantial evidence for a jury to conclude 

the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense but not the

charged offense. [Citations.] Substantial evidence is 

defined for this purpose as ‘evidence sufficient to “deserve 

consideration by the jury,” that is, evidence that a 

reasonable jury could find persuasive.’ [Citation.] ‘In 

deciding whether evidence is “substantial” in this context, a 

court determines only its bare legal sufficiency, not its 

weight.’ [Citation.] The trial court’s decision whether or 

not the substantial evidence test was met is reviewed on 

appeal under an independent or de novo standard of 

review. [Citations.]” (People v. Garcia (2008) 162 

Cal.App.4th 18, 24-25.)

Here, the People concede that simple possession is a lesser included 

offense of count 1 under the accusatory pleading test. Because the facts 

actually alleged in the accusatory pleading include all the elements of simple 

possession of methamphetamine, such that the charge plead in count 1 

cannot be committed without also committing the offense of simple 

possession, a lesser offense is necessarily included under the accusatory 

pleading test. (See People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108, 117.) Therefore, we 

agree with the People that simple possession was a lesser included offense of 

count 1. 

Rios argues there existed substantial evidence to support the giving of

an instruction for simple possession. For purposes of our analysis here, we 

will assume Rios is correct. However, even if we assume the trial court erred 

by failing to provide an instruction on simple possession, any such error was 

harmless. 

Error in failing to give a lesser included instruction is reviewed for 

prejudice under the People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 (Watson) standard. 
13

(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 165 (Breverman.) Under the 

Watson test, an error in failing sua sponte to instruct on a lesser included 

offense requires reversal of the conviction for the greater offense “if, ‘after an 

examination of the entire cause, including the evidence’ [citation], it appears 

‘reasonably probable’ the defendant would have obtained a more favorable 

outcome had the error not occurred.” (Breverman, at p. 178.) Probability 

under Watson “does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable 

chance, more than an abstract possibility.” (People v. Superior Court

(Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888, 918 (Ghilotti).)

Our high court in Breverman explained that appellate review under 

Watson “focuses not on what a reasonable jury could do, but what such a jury 

is likely to have done in the absence of the error under consideration. In 

making that evaluation, an appellate court may consider, among other 

things, whether the evidence supporting the existing judgment is so relatively

strong, and the evidence supporting a different outcome is so comparatively

weak, that there is no reasonable probability the error of which the defendant 

complains affected the result.” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 177.)

Even if the court erred by failing sua sponte to instruct on the lesser 

included offenses of simple possession, any such error was harmless under 

the Watson test as it is not reasonably probable (i.e., there is not a reasonable 

chance) Rios would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the jury 

been so instructed. (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 178; Ghilotti, supra, 

27 Cal.4th at p. 918.) We have already concluded that substantial evidence 

supports the jury’s conviction of Rios for all offenses. One of those offenses 

(count 2) was for being a felon in possession of a firearm. As such, the jury 

necessarily concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rios possessed the 
14

handgun. Further, the evidence supporting the jury’s finding on that crime 

was significant. 

As set forth above, the evidence showed Rios hid a loaded, operable 

.9-millimeter handgun, covered in fresh mud like himself, in a blue recycling 

bin 30 to 40 feet from where the deputies arrested him. A witness identified 

Rios as the man he saw in his backyard in the mud near to where the subject 

recycling bin was located. Another witness saw an individual standing by a 

blue recycling bin and trash can. In light of this evidence, as well as the 

jury’s verdict of guilt on count 2, there is no possibility that the jury would 

have found Rios committed simple possession of methamphetamine, but not 

the greater offense of possession of a controlled substance while armed with a 

firearm. Accordingly, any error in failing to give the simple

methamphetamine possession instruction was harmless.

III

COUNT 3

Rios contends, and the government concedes, that the trial court erred 

by not staying his sentence, under section 654, for count 3. We agree.

Section 654 bars double punishment for “[a]n act or omission that is 

punishable in different ways by different provisions of law . . . .” The bar 

extends to multiple offenses constituting one indivisible transaction. 

(People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784, 789.) Here, count 3 (possession of 

ammunition by a felon), like count 2 (possession of a firearm by a felon), 

should have been stayed under section 654, because the presence of the 

ammunition within the handgun was part of the same, indivisible course of 

conduct as the crime charged in count 1 (possession of methamphetamine 

while armed with a loaded firearm). Because the court sentenced Rios under 

count 1, it should have stayed his sentence under count 3 per section 654. 
15

Although we conclude that the trial court should have stayed Rios’s 

sentence under count 3, we note there is some confusion in the record 

regarding Rios’s sentence. During the sentencing hearing, the court orally 

imposed a concurrent term for Count 3. Yet, the abstract of judgment 

indicates the sentence for count 3 was stayed under section 654. It is wellsettled that an abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction, and it

does not control if it differs from the oral pronouncement of sentence.

(People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89.)

Here, the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a concurrent term was the 

actual sentence imposed, rather than the stayed term indicated in the

abstract of judgment. Typically, when an abstract of judgment does not 

reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial court’s oral pronouncement,

we have the inherent power to correct the clerical error on appeal. (People v. 

Jones, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 89.) In the instant matter, however, we need 

not correct the abstract of judgment at all. Rios was convicted in count 3 for 

being a felon in possession of ammunition, which was found loaded in the 

same gun that Rios was charged with possessing in counts 1 and 2. The trial 

court appropriately stayed the count 2 term under section 654, because both 

counts 1 and 2 penalized him for possession of the same gun during an 

indivisible course of conduct. Although the abstract of judgment does not 

need to be amended, Rios’s sentence for possessing ammunition that was 

found loaded in that same handgun should have also been stayed under

section 654. (Cf. People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138 [“Where, as 

here, all of the ammunition is loaded into the firearm, an ‘indivisible course 

of conduct’ is present [with the possession of the firearm] and section 654

precludes multiple punishment.”].) 
16

To avoid any confusion, we conclude that the trial court erred in orally

pronouncing a concurrent sentence for Rios under count 3. Per section 654, 

the trial court should have stayed any sentence under count 3. However, the 

abstract of judgment accurately reflects that the sentence for count 3 is 

stayed and no change is needed to the abstract for that count.

IV

SENATE BILL NO. 136

Rios contends the four one-year prior prison term enhancements

imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) must be stricken under the 

amendment to section 667.5, subdivision (b) by Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-

2020 Reg. Sess.) effective January 1, 2020. The People concede the issue.

Signed by the Governor on October 8, 2019, and effective January 1,

2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) amends section 667.5, 

subdivision (b), to eliminate the one-year prior prison term enhancement for 

most prior convictions including Rios’s. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1.)

Because Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) became effective 

before Rios’s judgment is final, we agree with the parties that the amended 

law will apply to him retroactively. (See In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 

744-745 [absent evidence of contrary legislative intent, ameliorative criminal 

statutes apply to all cases not final when the statute takes effect].) 

Therefore, we modify the judgment to strike Rios’s four one-year prior prison 

term enhancements. We need not remand this matter for resentencing

because the trial court already imposed the maximum sentence available. 

(People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337, 342.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed in part to address sentencing errors under 

section 654 and Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.). In all other 
17

respects, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is instructed to amend the 

abstract of judgment consistent with this opinion and forward same to the 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.