Filed 11/4/20 P. v. Quiroz CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAVIER QUIROZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B302350

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. VA150964)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Olivia Rosales, Judge. Affirmed as 

modified.

Adrian Dresel-Velasquez, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

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

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Marc A. Kohm and Noah P. Hill, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant Javier Quiroz, Jr. appeals from the sentence 

following his conviction for driving a vehicle without consent. He 

contends that a one-year prior prison term enhancement imposed 

pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b)1 must be 

stricken in light of the passage of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 

Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 136). He also requests correction of errors in the 

abstract of judgment. Respondent agrees with both contentions. 

Therefore, we strike the one-year enhancement and modify the 

judgment accordingly. We further direct the trial court to correct 

the abstract of judgment. We otherwise affirm the judgment. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

On July 9, 2019, the Los Angeles County District Attorney 

(the People) filed an information charging defendant with one 

felony count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. 

Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count one) and one felony count of 

receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d; count two). The information 

further alleged defendant suffered two prior serious or violent 

felony convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12), served two 

prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and suffered a prior 

conviction for grand theft auto (§ 666.5). Prior to trial, the court 

granted the People’s motion to dismiss count two. 

On September 10, 2019, a jury convicted defendant of count 

one. Following a bifurcated court trial on the prior conviction 

allegations, the court found one of the prior strike allegations 

true. The court further found true the prior grand theft auto 

1All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.

2We omit the factual background as it is irrelevant to the 

issues presented on appeal.
3

conviction under section 666.5 and the two prior prison terms 

under section 667.5. 

The court sentenced defendant to a total of seven years in 

state prison, consisting of the mid-term of three years on count 

one, doubled pursuant to sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) 

through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), plus one year 

for one of the prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, 

subdivision (b). The court struck the second prior prison term 

allegation. The court also stayed the imposition of all fines and 

fees, finding that defendant did not have the ability to pay them. 

Defendant timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

I. One-Year Enhancement

Effective January 1, 2020, S.B. 136 amended section 667.5, 

subdivision (b), such that the one-year enhancement applies only 

if a defendant’s prior prison term was served for a sexually 

violent offense. (People v. Winn (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 872; 

People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 681.) Because 

defendant did not serve either of his prior prison terms for a 

sexually violent offense, and because his conviction is not final, 

defendant contends the one-year enhancement must be stricken 

from his sentence. (See People v. Winn, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 872 [S.B. 136 applies to non-final judgments]; People v. Brown

(2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 323 [“When the Legislature has amended a 

statute to reduce the punishment for a particular criminal 

offense, we will assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the 

Legislature intended the amended statute to apply to all 

defendants whose judgments are not yet final on the statute’s 

operative date.”].)

Respondent agrees, as do we, that S.B. 136 applies to this 
4

case. The parties further agree that remand for resentencing is 

unnecessary, as it would be impossible for the trial court to 

impose a seven-year term upon remand, nor could the court 

sentence defendant to any term greater than the seven years 

defendant originally received. We therefore strike the one-year 

prior prison term imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b) 

and modify the sentence to reflect a total term of six years.

II. Abstract of Judgment

Defendant also contends that several errors in the abstract 

of judgment require correction. Respondent agrees. We therefore 

direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to 

accurately reflect the following: (1) the imposition of the threeyear mid-term sentence on count one pursuant to section 666.5; 

and (2) the court’s stay of the imposition of the restitution fine, 

court operations assessment, and conviction assessment.

DISPOSITION

The one-year prior prison term imposed under section 

667.5, subdivision (b) is stricken, and the sentence is modified to 

a term of six years in state prison. The trial court is directed to 

amend the abstract of judgment to reflect this modification and to

correct the errors discussed herein. The trial court shall send an 

amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. 

The judgment is affirmed as modified. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:
5

MANELLA, P. J. CURREY, J