Court Opinion

ID: 9380024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 21:03:47.627534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:45.615487
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/16/23 P. v. Camarillo CA1/5
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   A163883
 v.
 JESUS CAMARILLO,                                                        (Solano County
             Defendant and Appellant.                                    Super. Ct. No. FCR331711)

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION1
         After the juvenile court transferred Jesus Camarillo to criminal court
for trial, a jury found him guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187,
subd. (a), 189, subd. (b); count 1)2 and attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a),
664; count 2) with true findings on firearm enhancements to both counts
(§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (d)), and the Solano Superior Court sentenced him to
47 years to life in prison. (People v. Camarillo (Jan. 20, 2021, A155577)
[nonpub. opn.] pp. 1, 2, fn. 3, 6–7.)3 This division affirmed his convictions but

        Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct.,
         1

rule 19.
         2   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
        We grant Camarillo’s unopposed request for judicial notice of this
         3

court’s records of his prior appeal (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a), 452,
subd. (d)), including this division’s prior opinion, which we cite only for

                                                               1
remanded his case for resentencing under People v. Morrison (2019) 34
Cal.App.5th 217 “to consider whether to strike the section 12022.53,
subdivision (d) enhancement and impose a lesser enhancement in connection
with [his] second degree murder conviction.” (People v. Camarillo, supra,
A155577, at pp. 27, 28.) The court did just that when it resentenced him to
42 years to life, striking the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement to
count 1 and imposing the subdivision (c) and subdivision (b) enhancements.
The court stayed the latter under section 654 instead of under section
12022.53, which, as we will discuss, was error.
      Camarillo now appeals the resentencing order but for a different
reason, arguing subsequent amendments to section 1170 require
resentencing on count 2. The People agree he is at least entitled to a new
sentencing hearing on count 2, and so do we, though we reject his related
section 654 argument as to the stayed enhancement to count 1. Camarillo
also argues a recent amendment to the Welfare and Institutions Code entitles
him to a new juvenile transfer hearing. The People agree, and so do we. We
independently review these statutes’ interpretation and application. (People
v. Childs (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1101.)
      In 2021 the Legislature amended the determinate sentencing law to
mandate the lower term of imprisonment if any of three circumstances “was a
contributing factor in the commission of the offense,” including if the offender
“was a youth as defined under subdivision (b) of Section 1016.7 at the
time . . . .” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6), (b)(6)(B), amended by Stats. 2021, ch. 731,

background (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), (b); The Utility Reform
Network v. Public Utilities Com. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 945, 951, fn. 3). We
deny the remainder of his request as unnecessary (People v. Sands (2021) 70
Cal.App.5th 193, 201, fn. 3).

                                         2
§ 1.3, No. 5E Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 609, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.)4 “A
‘youth’ [is] any person under 26 years of age on the date the offense was
committed.” (§ 1016.7, subd. (b), added by Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 4, No. 5E
Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 299, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) Camarillo was 16 at
the time. (People v. Camarillo, supra, A155577, at p. 2.) We agree with the
parties that these amendments apply retroactively to him and that he is
entitled to a hearing on whether to resentence him to the lower term on
count 2. (People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1039.) We express no
opinion on what the outcome should be.
      Camarillo also argues he is entitled to resentencing on the firearm
enhancements to count 1 under the 2021 amendment to section 654. (Stats.
2021, ch. 441, § 1, No. 5C Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 23, eff. Jan. 1,
2022.) The People correctly respond, “The sentence on a lesser enhancement
that was alleged and found true is stayed not by section 654 but by section
12022.53 itself.” Indeed, “the sentence enhancement provisions of . . . section
12022.53 are not limited by the multiple punishment prohibition of . . .
section 654,” and “in enacting section 12022.53, the Legislature made clear
that it intended to create a sentencing scheme unfettered by section 654.”
(People v. Palacios (2007) 41 Cal.4th 720, 723, 727–728.) Section 12022.53,
subdivisions (b)–(d) mandate that their enhancements be applied
“[n]otwithstanding any other law . . . .” “The only limitation to this rule is
found in subdivision (f) . . . .” (People v. Palacios, at pp. 725–726 & fn. 4, 731–

      4 The amended law nevertheless exempts the court from imposing the
lower term if it would be “contrary to the interests of justice,” weighing the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances affecting sentencing. (§ 1170,
subd. (b)(6).) The Legislature amended section 1170 again in 2022 (Stats.
2022, ch. 744, § 1, No. 5B Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, pp. 1809–1813, eff.
Jan. 1, 2023), but not subdivision (b) (see 2022 Amendment, Deering’s Ann.
Pen. Code (2023 supp.) foll. § 1170, p. 11, col. 2).

                                        3
733.)5 “Here, the broad and unambiguous scope of ‘[n]otwithstanding any
other . . . law’ overrides the application, if any, of section 654 to the
imposition of punishment prescribed in section 12022.53, subdivisions
(b), (c) and (d).” (People v. Palacios, at p. 729; see People v. Hutchins (2001)
90 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314 [“where imposition of a firearms use enhancement
is made mandatory notwithstanding other sentencing laws and statutes, it is
error to apply section 654 to stay imposition of such an enhancement” (italics
omitted)]; Isaak v. Superior Court (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 792, 798–799 [the
phrase notwithstanding any other provision of law is “ ‘a “ ‘term of art’ ” ’ ”
with “ ‘special interpretative importance’ ”].)
      “[A]fter a trial court imposes punishment for the section 12022.53
firearm enhancement with the longest term of imprisonment, the remaining
section 12022.53 firearm enhancements . . . found true for the same crime
must be imposed and then stayed” under section 12022.53, not section 654.
(People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1130.)6 To stay the section
12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement under section 654 was error, though
harmless, applying section 12022.53, subdivision (f). The court can correct
the error on remand under the full resentencing rule, which “allows a court to
revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.”

      5 “Only one additional term of imprisonment under this section shall be
imposed per person for each crime. If more than one enhancement per person
is found true under this section, the court shall impose upon that person the
enhancement that provides the longest term of imprisonment. . . .”
(§ 12022.53, subd. (f).)
      6 “Often the sentencing statutes themselves will supply the answer
whether multiple enhancements can be imposed. . . . When this is the
situation, recourse to section 654 will be unnecessary because a specific
statute prevails over a more general one relating to the same subject. . . .
[¶] Only if the specific statutes do not provide the answer should the court
turn to section 654.” (People v. Ahmed (2011) 53 Cal.4th 156, 163.)

                                         4
(People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424–425; People v. Buycks (2018) 5
Cal.5th 857, 893–895.)
      Last, after we issued our opinion in this appeal, Camarillo petitioned
the Supreme Court for review on an issue he did not brief in this court: Does
the 2022 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 entitle
him to a new juvenile transfer hearing? The Supreme Court granted review
and transferred the matter back to us to consider this issue. (People v.
Camarillo (Nov. 8, 2022, A163883) [nonpub. opn.], review granted Jan. 18,
2023, S277731, opn. vacated and cause remanded for further consideration in
light of Assem. Bill No. 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) § 1.)
      In September 2022 the Legislature amended the Arnold–Kennick
Juvenile Court Law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 200 et seq.) in part to limit the
juvenile court’s power to transfer a minor to the criminal court for trial to
cases in which the juvenile court finds “by clear and convincing evidence that
the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(3), amended by Stats.
2022, ch. 330, § 1, No. 5A Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 751, eff. Jan. 1,
2023.) At the time of Camarillo’s juvenile transfer hearing, the burden of
proof was lower: by a preponderance of the evidence. (See Conservatorship of
O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995 [clear and convincing evidence is a higher
burden of proof].)7 We agree with the parties that this amendment applies
retroactively to Camarillo and that he is entitled to a new juvenile transfer
hearing. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303–304;

      7 The Juvenile Rules (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.500 et seq.) still reflect
the prior, lower burden of proof. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a).)

                                        5
People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 167–168.) Again we express no
opinion on what the outcome should be.8
                                 DISPOSITION
      We conditionally reverse the Solano Superior Court’s sentencing order
of September 14, 2021, and remand with directions to refer the case to the
juvenile court for a hearing on whether it would have transferred the case to
the criminal court applying the current law. If the juvenile court determines
it would not have transferred the case to the criminal court applying the
current law, it shall treat Camarillo’s convictions as juvenile adjudications
and order an appropriate disposition.
      If the juvenile court determines it would have transferred the case to
the criminal court applying the current law, it shall transfer the case to the
criminal court for resentencing on Camarillo’s attempted murder conviction
under amended Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), and to stay the
Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement to Camarillo’s
second degree murder conviction under section 12022.53, subdivision (f). The
criminal court shall then prepare amended abstracts of judgment reflecting
the new sentence and send copies to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.

      8 “[T]he . . . remedy we recognize today does not allow [Camarillo] to
raise claims unrelated to his sentence. . . . He must receive a transfer
hearing in a juvenile court, where the court will decide whether criminal
adjudication is appropriate . . . . Whatever potential that hearing may have
for reducing his punishment (the nonfinal part of his judgment), it does not
authorize . . . relitigation of guilt.” (People v. Padilla, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp.
169–170.)

                                         6
                                         _________________________
                                         Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Simons, J.

_________________________
Langhorne, J.*

A163883/People v. Jesus Camarillo

       Judge of the Superior Court of Napa County, assigned by the Chief
       *

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                     7