Opinion ID: 2682521
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal and Resentencing

Text: Defendant appealed and also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeal denied relief on appeal but granted the habeas corpus petition in part, finding Vargas‘s defense counsel had been constitutionally ineffective for failing to place before the trial court the transcript of the preliminary hearing in the 1999 case. Because the preliminary hearing transcript demonstrated Vargas‘s carjacking and robbery convictions were based on the same act of taking the victim‘s car by force, the appellate court concluded that ―a different outcome was reasonably probable had the trial court known that a single act was involved [in 1999], . . . .‖ Accordingly, it directed the trial court to conduct a new sentencing hearing after considering these additional facts. On remand, the trial court denied defendant‘s motion to dismiss one of the 1999 prior convictions. It noted that under our decision in Benson, supra, 18 3 Neither grand theft nor conspiracy to commit grand theft would now qualify for Three Strikes treatment under the version of the law as amended by the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, approved by the electorate as Proposition 36 on November 6, 2012. Because defendant‘s burglary was of a home, it constitutes burglary in the first degree and is thus a ―serious felony‖ pursuant to section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(18). (See People v. Cruz (1996) 13 Cal.4th 764, 768.) Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to have her Three Strikes sentence for burglary recalled under the terms of the new law. (See § 1170.126, subd. (b).) 4 Cal.4th 24, ―the central focus is not on the single act[,] . . . , it‘s on the defendant‘s status as a repeat felon‖ and observed, further, that defendant had received a benefit in 1999 when she was allowed to plead to a negotiated plea of only three years in prison for two serious felonies. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the trial court concluded defendant fell ―squarely within the spirit of [Three] Strikes.‖ On appeal from the resentencing, defendant contended the trial court erred by declining to strike one of her prior convictions and sentence her as a two-strike offender. The Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion and affirmed. We granted review.