Court Opinion

ID: 9951404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 22:02:45.057602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:00.881116
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/15/24 P. v. Chavez CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,                                                   B323762

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                            (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. TA084148)
         v.

RAUL CHAVEZ,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Tammy Chung Ryu, Judge. Reversed.
      California Appellate Project, Richard B. Lennon and
Sydney Banach, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer and Noah P. Hill,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                       I. BACKGROUND

      In 2007, a jury found defendant Raul Chavez guilty of: one
count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459, count one); six
counts of attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211, counts two through
seven); and one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245,
subd. (a)(1), count eight). The jury found true allegations that
defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of
counts one through seven. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53,
subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 35
years, eight months in prison, which included a 10-year
enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a) for count
one, and consecutive three year and four month enhancements
for each of counts three to seven. The court stayed the sentence
on count two.
      In a letter dated April 17, 2019, the Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Secretary) recommended that the trial court recall defendant’s
sentence pursuant to former section 1170, subdivision (d).2 The
Secretary noted that amendments to section 12022.53,
subdivision (h), which became effective January 1, 2018, now
permitted sentencing courts discretion to strike personal use
firearm enhancements at sentencing pursuant to section 1385.

1     All further references are to the Penal Code.

2     Assembly Bill No. 1540, which became effective January 1,
2022 (Stats. 2021, ch. 719 § 3.1), revised and moved former
section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) to a new section, 1170.03.
Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered the section
as 1172.1. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 9.)

                                 2
      On June 24, 2019, the trial court, without appointing
counsel or holding a hearing, issued a minute order stating that
it had considered the Secretary’s letter and “elect[ed] to take no
action on the recommendation.” Defendant appeals from that
ruling.

                        II. DISCUSSION

       Defendant contends that the trial court erred in summarily
denying the Secretary’s resentencing recommendation under
newly enacted section 1172.1 by failing to appoint counsel, failing
to set a status conference, and failing to hold a hearing before
ruling on the recommendation. The Attorney General disputes
that section 1172.1 applies to the court’s ruling, which was made
prior to January 1, 2022, the effective date for Assembly Bill
No. 1540. He nevertheless concedes that a remand is
appropriate.
       We accept the concession and agree that the proper
resolution of this appeal is to reverse the trial court’s order and
remand for further proceedings in compliance with newly enacted
section 1172.1. (People v. E.M. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1089-
1091; People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040–
1041.) Among other things, the court must provide notice to
defendant, appoint counsel, conduct a hearing (absent a
stipulation by the parties), and state on the record the reasons for
its decision to grant or deny recall and resentencing. (§ 1172.1.)

                                 3
                       III. DISPOSITION

       The order denying the Secretary’s resentencing
recommendation is reversed and the cause is remanded to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                           KIM, J.

      We concur:

            BAKER, Acting P. J.

            MOOR, J.

                                 4