1

Filed 1/19/22 P. v. Lewis CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A162555

(Contra Costa County 

Super. Ct. Nos. 23250685, 

52014249, 23336583)

Defendant Daronta Lewis was serving a nine-year sentence, including 

three one-year prior prison term enhancements under Penal Code section 

667.5, subdivision (b),

1 when he pleaded no contest to new charges and was 

sentenced to a new 11-year term, again including the prior prison term 

enhancements. However, in the interim, Senate Bill No. 136 limited those 

prior prison term enhancements to “sexually violent” offenses not at issue 

here, and Lewis argues that he is entitled to the retroactive benefit of that 

legislation. We agree, and accordingly we will strike the enhancements. 

BACKGROUND

In August 2018, in Solano County Superior Court Case No. 

FCR330522, Lewis pleaded no contest to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, 

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2

§ 211) with an enhancement for use of a weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and 

three one-year enhancements for prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). (See 

People v. Lewis (Oct. 5, 2021, A162630) [nonpub. opn.], [pp. 1–2].)2 In

September, the trial court sentenced Lewis to a total term of nine years, 

comprised of the upper term of five years for the robbery conviction and four

consecutive one-year terms for each of the four enhancements. (Ibid.)

On October 8, 2019, the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 136, which 

became effective January 1, 2020. It amended section 667.5, subdivision (b) 

to provide that the one-year prior prison term enhancement shall be imposed 

only for certain “sexually violent” offenses. (See § 667.5, subd. (b); Stats. 

2019, ch. 590, § 1.) 

In 2017 and 2020, Lewis was charged in six cases in Contra Costa 

County with numerous counts, including multiple counts of felony vandalism 

(Case Nos. 02-325068-5, 05-200866-2, 05-201035-3, 02-333464-6, 05-201424-

9, 02-333658-3).3

On April 2, 2021, Lewis pleaded no contest to one count of felony grand 

theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)) in Case No. 2-325068-5 and two counts 

of felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) in Case No. 2-333658-3 in exchange for 

a sentence of two years in state prison, to run consecutive to his sentence in 

Solano County Case No. FCR330552. 

On April 2, the trial court sentenced Lewis to a term of 11 years in 

state prison. The trial court first resentenced Lewis to nine years in Case 

No. FCR330552—again the upper term of five years for second degree 

2 We granted Lewis’s unopposed motion for judicial notice of the 

October 5, 2021 opinion in his direct appeal and the September 14, 2017 

information in Solano County Case No. FCR330552. 

3 We omit discussion of the facts of the underlying offenses as they are 

not relevant to the single issue on appeal. 
3

robbery, one year for the weapons enhancement, and three one-year terms for

three prison prior enhancements. The trial court then sentenced Lewis to the 

agreed-upon two-year sentence in the new cases—one eight-month term for 

the grand theft count and two eight-month terms for each of the vandalism

counts, to run consecutively. 

Lewis appealed.

While that appeal was pending, on October 8, 2021, the Governor 

signed Senate Bill No. 483, effective January 1, 2022, which added 

section 1171.1, subdivision (a):

“(a) Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 

2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any

enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as 

defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions 

Code is legally invalid.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3.)

Section 1171.1 further provides that once the sentencing court 

identifies defendants serving a term including a one-year prior prison term 

enhancement, the court “shall recall the sentence and resentence the 

defendant,” (§ 1171.1, subd. (c)), and that such resentencing “shall result in a 

lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination 

of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing 

evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. 

Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence 

than the one originally imposed.” (§ 1171.1, subd. (d)(1).) And the legislation 

provides: “It is the intent of the Legislature that any changes to the sentence 

as a result of [Senate Bill No. 483] shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or 

court to rescind a plea agreement.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 1.)
4

DISCUSSION

Lewis argues that he is entitled to the retroactive benefit of Senate Bill 

No. 136, and that the three one-year prior prison term enhancements must be 

stricken because they are not based on “sexually violent” offenses. The 

Attorney General agrees, as do we. (See People v. Matthews (2020) 

47 Cal.App.5th 857, 864–865 [Senate Bill No. 136 applies retroactively to 

non-final judgments].) 

However, the parties differ slightly on the appropriate remedy. Lewis 

asks that we simply modify the judgment to strike the enhancements, 

arguing that resentencing is unnecessary because there are no discretionary 

decisions for the trial court to make at resentencing. The Attorney General 

agrees that we should strike the enhancements, but also asks that we 

remand for resentencing. 

We conclude that resentencing is unnecessary under the circumstances 

here. Lewis was sentenced under a plea agreement, Senate Bill No. 483 

expresses the Legislature’s intent that any changes to a sentence resulting 

from Senate Bill No. 136 “shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to 

rescind a plea agreement” (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 1), and the Attorney 

General acknowledges that that measure “implicitly prohibits recission of a 

plea agreement” under circumstances such as these. Nor does the Attorney 

General offer any argument why resentencing is appropriate or identify any 

discretionary decisions to be made by the trial court at resentencing. 

Accordingly, we will simply strike the one-year prior prison term 

enhancements. 

DISPOSITION

The three one-year prison prior enhancements are stricken. The case is 

remanded for preparation of an amended abstract of judgment. 
5

_________________________

Richman, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Stewart, J.

_________________________

Miller, J.

People v. Lewis (A162555)