Court Opinion

ID: 9955876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 17:02:21.862364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:34.858242
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/28/24 P. v. Hernandez CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F086156
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. PCF373627)
                    v.

    ERNIE HERNANDEZ III,                                                                  OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Stephen Drew,
Judge. (Retired Judge of the Tulare County Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
         Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.
                                     INTRODUCTION
       Appellant and defendant Ernie Hernandez III (appellant) was convicted of
narcotics offenses and other offenses in four separate superior court case numbers, and
sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 years four months. He filed a direct appeal under
only one of the four case numbers. While his direct appeal was pending, Senate Bill
No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) went into effect, and the appellate
court remanded the case on appeal for resentencing. On remand, the superior court
resentenced appellant, he did not file an appeal from the resentencing, and the judgment
has become final.
       In this case, appellant filed a petition for resentencing in one of the four cases he
was convicted in, and alleged his petition was based on Penal Code1 section “1170(d)(1)
([Senate Bill] 567).” The trial court conducted a hearing and determined he had already
been resentenced in the companion cases, and appellant’s counsel conceded the petition
was filed under the wrong statute.
       On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations
to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant filed a letter brief raising several
issues. We review those issues and affirm.
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       The following facts are set forth to place in context appellant’s multiple
convictions that resulted in the aggregate sentence that he is now challenging.2

1      All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2      After notice to the parties and without objection, this court takes judicial notice of
the record and nonpublished opinion in appellant’s direct appeal, People v. Hernandez
(May 10, 2022, A164253) (Hernandez). (Evid. Code, §§ 450, 452, subd. (d), 459;
In re W.R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 284, 286–287, fn. 2.) The following facts are summarized
from the nonpublished opinion in Hernandez, and the probation report arising from those
convictions.
                                              2
Case No. PCF367364
       On June 26, 2018, appellant was arrested after he was found in possession of a
stolen vehicle. On June 28, 2018, a criminal complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
Tulare County for receiving/possessing a stolen vehicle. On July 22, 2018, appellant
posted bail.
Case No. PCF369732
       On August 24, 2018, appellant was arrested for being in possession of another
stolen vehicle. On August 28, 2018, a criminal complaint was filed for
receiving/possession a stolen vehicle. He was released on his own recognizance.
Case No. PCF373627
       On December 1, 2018, appellant was arrested for being in possession of
methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and a smoking device.
       On December 27, 2018, an information was filed in case No. PCF373627 charging
appellant with count 1, possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11378); count 2, possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); count 3,
possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); and count 4, misdemeanor
possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)(1)), with
two on-bail/own recognizance enhancements that at the time he committed the offenses,
he was released in case Nos. PCF369732 and PCF367364 (§ 12022.2), and prior
conviction allegations.
Plea Proceedings
       On February 21, 2019, appellant entered pleas in the three pending cases pursuant
to a negotiated disposition. As part of the plea agreement, the trial court granted
appellant’s motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction alleged in each of the

                                             3
three cases, and for a two-week waiver of sentencing pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988)
44 Cal.3d 1247.3
       The trial court stated appellant’s maximum exposure was 12 years eight months.
The indicated aggregate sentence for the three cases was seven years, with three years in
custody and four years on supervised release. The parties stipulated to the police reports
and preliminary hearing transcripts as the factual basis for the pleas.
       The trial court stated case No. PCF367364 would be the lead case, and appellant
pleaded no contest to purchasing/receiving a stolen vehicle, a GMC Yukon, on June 26,
2018 (§ 496d), and admitted prior conviction allegations.
       In case No. PCF373627, appellant pleaded no contest to count 1, possession of
methamphetamine for sale; count 2, possession of cocaine for sale; count 3, possession of
heroin for sale; and count 4, misdemeanor possession of narcotics paraphernalia; and
admitted the two on-bail enhancements (§ 12022.1), and admitted prior conviction
allegations.
       In case No. PCF369732, appellant pleaded no contest to purchasing/receiving a
stolen vehicle, a Chevrolet Silverado, on August 24, 2018 (§ 496d), and admitted prior
conviction allegations.
       The trial court ordered appellant to turn himself in for sentencing on March 8,
2019, and advised him that if he failed to appear, he faced a maximum sentence of
12 years eight months, pursuant to the Cruz waiver.
Failure to Appear
       On March 8, 2019, appellant failed to appear for sentencing as ordered, and a
bench warrant was issued.

3     “A ‘Cruz waiver’ gives a trial court the power to ‘withdraw its approval of the
defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained-for term,’ if the
defendant willfully fails to appear for sentencing.” (People v. Puente (2008)
165 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1146, fn. 3.)
                                              4
Case No. PCF379033
       Appellant’s fourth case arose from the following events, that occurred while there
were three outstanding bench warrants for his arrest.
       On March 26, 2019, an officer activated the lights on his patrol car to perform a
traffic stop on a vehicle because of a broken side mirror. The vehicle initially pulled
over. As the officer walked to the vehicle, the driver drove away and ran a stop sign.
The officer returned to his patrol car and began a pursuit. The driver of the vehicle went
through additional stop signs, drove erratically, and failed to yield. The pursuit was
halted because of public danger. The vehicle was later found abandoned. An
investigation of the vehicle’s license plate number led to appellant’s girlfriend, who
reported that appellant had taken her car. Appellant was subsequently located and
arrested on the three felony warrants and for violating parole. (Hernandez, supra,
A164253.)
       As a result of this incident, case No. PCF379033 was filed that charged appellant
with evading an officer with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.4), three counts of
failing to appear while released on bail/his own recognizance (§ 1320, subd. (b)), and
other offenses. (Hernandez, supra, A164253.)
       On October 7, 2019, after a jury trial, appellant was convicted of evading an
officer and three counts of failure to appear. (Hernandez, supra, A164253.)
Sentencing Hearing
       On February 7, 2020, the trial court sentenced appellant on the multiple
convictions in the four pending cases. Appellant had previously admitted section 667.5,
subdivision (b) prior prison term enhancements; the court dismissed these enhancements
as a result of subsequently-enacted statutory amendments that eliminated these
enhancements.

                                             5
       The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 12 years four months
for the convictions in the four cases, as follows.
       In case No. PCF379033, the trial court imposed the upper term of six years for
count 2, felony evasion, plus a consecutive term of two years for the section 12022.1
on-bail/own recognizance enhancement; a consecutive term of one year four months
(one-third the midterm) for count 3, failure to appear; and concurrent upper terms of
six years each for counts 4 and 5, failure to appear, for a total of nine years four months.
       In case No. PCF367364, the trial court imposed a consecutive term of one year
(one-third the midterm) for purchasing/receiving a stolen vehicle.
       In case No. PCF369732,4 the trial court imposed a consecutive term of one year
(one-third the midterm) for purchasing/receiving a stolen vehicle.
       In case No. PCF373627, the trial court imposed a consecutive term of one year
(one-third the midterm) for count 2, possession of cocaine for sale; a concurrent upper
term of three years for count 1, possession of methamphetamine for sale; a concurrent
upper term of four years for count 3, possession of heroin for sale; no custody was
imposed for misdemeanor count 4; and the attached section 12022.1 enhancement was
stayed, for a total of one year.
Direct Appeal
       On February 28, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal in this court from the
convictions and sentences imposed on February 7, 2020, but only for case
No. PCF379033, where he was convicted after a jury trial of felony evasion and
three counts of failing to appear. Appellant’s sole issue on appeal was the felony evasion
conviction had to be reversed because of instructional error.

4    The February 7, 2020 sentencing hearing transcript incorrectly identifies this case
number as “367732”; the correct case number is “369732.”

                                              6
       On December 20, 2021, after briefing was completed, the Supreme Court
transferred case No. F080869 from the Fifth Appellate District to the Court of Appeal,
First Appellate District, Division Two (First District).
       On January 1, 2022, the amendments to section 1170 enacted by Senate Bill 567
became effective for cases that were not final and pending on appeal.5
       On February 4, 2022, the First District sent a briefing order for the parties to
address whether appellant’s case should be remanded for resentencing pursuant to
Senate Bill 567 since he was sentenced to upper terms for counts 2, 4, and 5 in
case No. PCF379033.
       On May 10, 2022, the First District filed the nonpublished opinion in Hernandez,
supra, A164253, limited to appellant’s convictions and sentence imposed for his
convictions for felony evasion and failure to appear in case No. PCF379033. The court
rejected appellant’s claim of instructional error as to felony evasion.
       As to the amendments enacted by Senate Bill 567, the appellate court stated “the
trial court imposed upper terms for counts 2, 4, and 5. The parties agree that
[Senate Bill] 567 applies retroactively to this case and that the matter should be remanded
for resentencing under current … section 1170. We agree with the parties and remand
the matter to the trial court for resentencing.” (Hernandez, supra, A164253, at p. 17.)
       The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing
hearing, and otherwise affirmed appellant’s convictions in case No. PCF379033.
(Hernandez, supra, A164253.)

5      As relevant to this case, and as explained below, Senate Bill 567 amended
section 1170, subdivision (b)(1) to state: “When a judgment of imprisonment is to be
imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound
discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (2).”
                                              7
       Appellant did not file a petition for rehearing or review from the appellate court’s
opinion.
Resentencing on Remand
       On October 7, 2022, the trial court held the resentencing hearing on remand. The
instant record does not contain a reporter’s transcript from the hearing. The abstract of
judgment and minute order state the court resentenced appellant as to the four cases.
       In case No. PCF379033, the trial court had previously sentenced appellant to the
upper term of six years for count 2, felony evasion; it reduced that sentence to the
midterm of four years with a consecutive term of two years for the section 12022.1
on-bail/own recognizance enhancement; a consecutive term of one year four months
(one-third the midterm) for count 3, failure to appear; and reduced the concurrent upper
terms of six years to concurrent midterms of four years each for counts 4 and 5, failure to
appear, for a total of seven years four months.
       In case No. PCF373627, the trial court imposed a consecutive term of one year
(one-third the midterm) for count 2, possession of cocaine for sale; a concurrent
upper term of three years for count 1, possession of methamphetamine for sale; a
concurrent upper term of four years for count 3, possession of heroin for sale; no custody
imposed for misdemeanor count 4; and stayed the section 12022.1 enhancement, for a
total of one year.
       The abstract of judgment shows that the trial court did not impose any terms for
case Nos. PCF367364 and PCF369732, the two cases for receiving stolen vehicles.
       The abstract further shows that appellant’s aggregate sentence for case
Nos. PCF379033, PCF367364, PCF369732, and PCF373627 was modified from
12 years four months to eight years four months.
       Appellant did not file an appeal from the trial court’s resentencing order, and that
judgment is now final.

                                             8
                               APPELLANT’S PETITION
       The instant appeal arises from a handwritten petition that appellant filed in the trial
court, in propria persona, on January 25, 2023, for resentencing only as to
case No. PCF373627, where he pleaded to three counts of possession for sale.
Appellant’s petition stated it was filed pursuant to section “1170(d)(1) ([Senate Bill]
567).” Appellant requested appointment of counsel.
       Appellant checked boxes on a handwritten form that declared he was convicted of
possession of a controlled substance for sale, he could not be convicted of
“3 yrs Upper/4 yrs Upper Terms” because of “changes to section 1170(d)(1) made
effective on January 1, 2022 ([Senate Bill] 567),” and requested that his “High Terms” be
vacated and he be resentenced. He further declared that he “experienced psychological,
physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation,
or sexual violence [capitalization omitted],” performed acts in prison that tended to
indicate rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation, maintained family ties, and had
no disciplinary actions within the prior five years.
       The trial court appointed counsel and set a hearing on the petition.
The Court’s Denial of the Petition
       On April 4, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on appellant’s petition. Appellant
was represented by counsel.
       Appellant’s counsel stated she spoke to appellant “to find out exactly what his
issue is regarding his sentence.” Counsel stated appellant was originally sentenced on at
least three cases in February 2020, the aggravated terms were imposed in the lead case,
and the law subsequently changed as to the upper terms. Counsel further stated appellant
was resentenced in October 2022 to a lesser term, but his sentence was not recalled in
case No. PCF373627, which was the basis for his current petition. Appellant had
concurrent upper terms imposed in case No. PCF373627, and counsel was not sure

                                              9
whether those terms had to be recalled for resentencing since they did not add anything to
appellant’s sentence.
       The prosecutor stated appellant’s current petition should “be withdrawn. The
basis by which he’s filed his petition is not applicable in this case. I think he filed a
petition saying that because he was at the time of the commission under the age of 18,
that he was serving 25-to-life that he should be given a resentencing.” Appellant’s
counsel concurred that appellant used a “fill-in form that he received from the prison. It
wasn’t applicable to his case.”
       The trial court agreed with the parties that appellant’s petition was based on
inapplicable statutes, and denied the petition filed in case No. PCF373627. The court
also ordered the abstract of judgment from the October 2022 resentencing hearing sent to
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and placed in the superior court’s
records for each of appellant’s four cases.6
       On April 21, 2023, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                       DISCUSSION
       As explained above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief in this appeal.
Appellant filed a letter brief raising the following issues.
A. Appellant’s Aggregate Sentence
       Appellant states that at the resentencing hearing in 2022, the trial court imposed a
term of 10 years four months, and not eight years four months as stated in his appellate
counsel’s brief.

6      In this appeal, appellate counsel states that he directed a letter to the superior court
and requested a copy of the abstract for the October 2022 resentencing hearing, as
discussed by the parties. The amended abstract was provided to counsel, and filed with
this court under case No. F080869, which was appellant’s original appeal in
case No. PCF379033 that was transferred to the First District.
                                               10
       As set forth above, however, the abstract of judgment shows that appellant was
resentenced at the hearing on remand to an aggregate term of eight years four months.
B. Section 12022.1 Enhancements
       Next, appellant contends appellate counsel’s brief erroneously states that a
two-year term was imposed for a section 12022.1 “weapon” enhancement, and declares
that he was never charged with a weapon enhancement.
       Appellant is correct that counsel’s brief erroneously states that he was sentenced
for a “weapon allegation under … section 12022.1.” There were no weapon allegations
pleaded or proved in this case. Section 12022.1 defines the on-bail enhancements that
were alleged and found true in case No. PCF379033, where the trial court correctly
imposed a two-year term for the on-bail enhancement. The court stayed the term
imposed for the section 12022.1 on-bail enhancement in case No. PCF373627, and these
terms are correctly identified in the abstract of judgment.
C. Senate Bill 567
       Appellant’s petition declared it was filed pursuant to section “1170(d)(1)
([Senate Bill] 567),” that he “experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma,
including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence
[capitalization omitted],” and also the trial court erroneously imposed “High Terms” at
the hearing on remand in violation of Senate Bill 567.
       In his letter brief on appeal, appellant asserts his petition was for modification of
his sentence in case No. PCF373627 pursuant to “[Senate Bill] 567” because he was
sentenced to “High Terms,” and the high terms were not reduced at the 2022 resentencing
hearing.
       Appellant’s petition cites statutes and language that are inapplicable to his case:
subdivisions (b) and (d) of section 1170. Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 567
amended section 1170, subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) to state that “the trial court may

                                             11
impose an upper term sentence only where there are circumstances in aggravation that
justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts
underlying all of the aggravating circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant
or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or a trial court if the defendant has
consented to a court trial.” (People v. Dunn (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 394, 402.)
       Senate Bill 567 also amended section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)(A) and (B) to state
the sentencing court shall impose the lower term if the defendant’s psychological,
physical, or childhood trauma, or his youth (defined as under the age of 26 years)
contributed to the commission of the offense, unless it finds that the aggravating
circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances such that imposition of the
lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. (§§ 1170, subd. (b)(6), 1016.7,
subd. (b); People v. Tilley (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 772, 777–778.)
       Finally, section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A) states that “[w]hen a defendant who
was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the
defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has
been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a
petition for recall and resentencing.”
       Senate Bill 567’s amendments to section 1170 were retroactive to all cases that
were pending on appeal and not yet final when the amendments became effective on
January 1, 2022. However, Senate Bill 567’s amendments do not apply to final
judgments. (People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1039; People v. Fox (2023)
90 Cal.App.5th 826, 831.)
       Appellant did not file a notice of appeal from the trial court’s October 2022
resentencing hearing and that judgment is now final. The ameliorative effects of the
amendments enacted by Senate Bill 567 were only applicable to nonfinal convictions.
(People v. Flores, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 1039.)

                                            12
        Even if appellant’s claims were cognizable in this appeal, there is no indication in
the record that at the resentencing hearing the trial court violated section 1170 by failing
to state reasons for imposing the upper concurrent terms as part of his aggregate sentence
(§ 1170, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2)); appellant sought the lower term based on psychological or
childhood trauma (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6)(A) & (B)); and he was not sentenced to life
without the possibility of parole (§ 1170, subd. (d)(1)). By failing to object at the
resentencing hearing and failing to file an appeal, appellant forfeited his purported
section 1170 claims. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353; People v. Velasquez
(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1512; People v. Tilley, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 777–
778.)
                                       DISPOSITION
        The trial court’s order of April 4, 2023, denying appellant’s petition, is affirmed.

                                              13