Court Opinion

ID: 9411071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 18:04:43.62785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:02.712967
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/25/23 P. v. Aguirre CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096369

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 10F04114)

           v.

 CARLOS RENE AGUIRRE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Carlos Rene Aguirre was convicted of multiple charges related to a
2010 bank robbery. In 2021, this court affirmed the convictions but remanded the matter
back to the trial court for a resentencing hearing, so that the trial court could consider
exercising its discretion to strike gun enhancements and a prior serious felony
enhancement. (People v. Aguirre (July 2, 2021, C085307) [nonpub. opn.] (Aguirre).)
Defendant argues the trial court erroneously denied his request to strike the prior serious
felony enhancement. We will affirm.

                                                             1
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In January 2010, a man wearing a ski mask walked into a bank, grabbed Kelly C.
from behind, put a gun to her head, and ordered everyone else to the ground. He
demanded money from two bank tellers, and they put approximately $50,000 into his
backpack. He then returned to the front of the bank and demanded Kelly C.’s car keys.
She complied, and the man took off his mask and fled in her car. DNA recovered from
the mask matched defendant’s DNA. (Aguirre, supra, C085307.) There were three other
bank employees present during the robbery.
       In February 2017, a jury found defendant guilty of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215,
subd. (a); count one)1 and six counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts two-seven).
As to each count, the jury also found true that defendant personally used a firearm.
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court found true that defendant had a prior serious
felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)) and a prior strike (§ 667, subds.
(c) & (e)(1)), based on a 1997 conviction for assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)).
(Aguirre, supra, C085307.) Defendant was 15 years old when he committed the strike
offense.
       In June 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 30
years four months, which included doubling a term for the prior strike, adding a five-year
term for the prior serious felony enhancement, and terms for the firearm enhancements.
(Aguirre, supra, C085307.) In July 2021, we affirmed the convictions but remanded the
matter for the trial court to consider exercising its discretion to strike the firearm
enhancements and the prior serious felony enhancement. We also permitted defendant to
renew his motion to strike the prior conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court
(Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. (Aguirre, supra, C085307.)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                               2
       During the March 2022 resentencing hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s
Romero motion and struck the strike. In so doing, the court noted that, if defendant’s
1997 juvenile case were brought today, it would be very unlikely that his adjudication
would have resulted in a strike, given the limitations that were added in section 667,
subdivision (d)(3)(A). In addition, defendant appeared to be making positive changes in
his life. Although he had additional subsequent criminal convictions, including a
conviction in 2010 for driving under the influence, the court noted defendant had
remained crime and incident free while in custody for the 2017 crimes, and he had
pursued education and other prison programs. He also was an attentive father. Finally,
the court noted that defendant had a difficult childhood.
       However, the trial court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm
enhancements. In so doing, the court noted it had given “great weight” to the mitigating
factors as outlined in section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(A)-(I) but concluded the factors
were not outweighed by the danger defendant posed to others. The court considered
defendant’s background, the nature of his present offenses, and the interests of society.
The court noted defendant suffered stress, alcohol abuse, and physical ailments at the
time of the robbery and carjacking. But, the current crimes involved great violence and
the threat of great bodily injury or death, indicating a “high degree of callousness by the
defendant.” The crimes also involved advance planning, and defendant’s phone records
indicated he had been in the vicinity of the bank the day before the robberies, suggesting
he was not acting on a whim. Defendant also acted with a significant level of
sophistication, including concealing his identity with a ski mask and wearing gloves to
avoid leaving fingerprints. Defendant showed he intended to use the gun if the bank
tellers did not comply with his demands, and he further asserted his authority by jumping
up on the counter of the bank tellers’ stations. In addition, defendant had fired multiple
shots while committing the 1997 assault, and he continued to possess a gun despite being
prohibited from doing so due to his prior criminal convictions. In sum, the court declined

                                              3
to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements because it was not in the furtherance of
justice to do so.
       The trial court also declined to strike the prior serious felony enhancement. The
court again noted defendant had used a gun in the 1997 assault conviction, armed himself
again despite being prohibited from doing so due to his prior convictions, and had
committed serious current crimes. In addition, defendant had perjured himself during
trial and denied any culpability for the charged offenses.
       The trial court then sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 22 years
four months, as follows: The low term of three years for count one plus 10 years
consecutive for the firearm enhancement, three years for count two plus 10 years for the
firearm enhancement that the court stayed pursuant to section 654, one year consecutive
for count three plus three years four months for the firearm enhancement, three years
concurrent for each of counts four through seven plus 10 years concurrent for each of the
associated firearm enhancements, and five years consecutive for the prior serious felony
enhancement.
       Defendant subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration asking the trial court to
dismiss or strike the prior serious felony enhancement because it resulted in a sentence
greater than 20 years, which defendant argued was contrary to section 1385, subdivision
(c)(2)(C). He further argued he was not a danger to public safety, especially since his
prior serious convictions were from 12 and 26 years ago. He also had exhibited good
behavior in prison and was not a gang member. Defendant filed two briefs on the issue,
and also asked the court to correct his presentence custody credits.2
       At the start of the May 2022 hearing, the trial court said it had read defendant’s
briefs and would consider defendant’s request to strike the “firearm enhancement” and

2 The court’s ultimate award of presentence custody credits is not at issue in this appeal.

                                             4
correct his credits. Noting there was not yet guidance from appellate courts regarding
how to define “endanger public safety” under section 1385, subdivision (c)(2) (which
explains the phrase as meaning “there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the
enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others”), the court
cited In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, and explained it would consider “whether
the circumstances of the commitment offense, when considered in light of other facts in
the record, are such that they continue to be predictive of current dangerousness many
years after the commission of the offense.” In addition, the court would consider whether
the community would be endangered when defendant got out of prison. The court noted
multiple mitigating facts, including defendant’s change in “attitude” and “dynamic.” The
court then stated it stood by its analysis in March 2022, including its statements on the
record as to why it decided against dismissing the gun enhancements because doing so
would endanger public safety. The court noted it had “fully” considered defendant’s
ongoing participation in “prison-based rehabilitation programs, his testimonial letters, his
current reflective attitude, and the content of a prison psychologist’s assessment of his
ongoing progress as mitigating factors in the analysis.” The court later commented that it
hoped defendant’s good behavior was a “function of a revised standard of conduct. But
it’s also been fashioned under the threat of force and punishment of state prison
authorities.” Still, the court noted there were multiple factors in aggravation, including
all the factors it discussed with respect to the firearm enhancements. In addition,
defendant refused to settle the case, lied under oath, and had previously used firearms.
Under the circumstances, the court refused to strike the firearm enhancements because
defendant was a danger to public safety upon his release from custody. Defendant timely
appealed, filing his opening brief in December 2022. The case became fully briefed in
April 2023, and was assigned to this panel shortly thereafter.

                                             5
                                      DISCUSSION
       Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1), which went
into effect in January 2022, amended section 1385 to guide the exercise of the court’s
discretion in deciding whether to dismiss enhancements. Subdivision (c)(2) of section
1385 lists a series of circumstances for the court to consider, including whether:
(1) multiple enhancements were alleged in a single case; (2) the application of an
enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years; (3) the current offense is
connected to childhood trauma; (4) the defendant was a juvenile when they committed
the offense that triggers the enhancement; and (5) the enhancement is based on a prior
conviction that is over five years old. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(B), (C), (E), (G), & (H).) The
statute further provides that “[p]roof of the presence of one or more of these
circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court
finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.” (§ 1385, subd.
(c)(2).)
       Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to strike
or dismiss the punishment for the prior serious felony enhancement during the May 2022
hearing. Defendant notes that there were multiple circumstances present indicating the
court should have struck the prior serious felony enhancement: (1) there were multiple
enhancements alleged in his case (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(B)); (2) the application of the prior
serious felony enhancement resulted in a sentence of over 20 years (§ 1385, subd.
(c)(2)(C)); (3) he presented evidence of childhood trauma and neglect that the court
found credible (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(E)); (4) he was only 15 years old when he committed
the assault that was the basis for the prior serious felony enhancement (§ 1385, subd.
(c)(2)(G)); and (5) the assault conviction was from 1997, making it more than five years
old (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(H)).
       Noting that the trial court only mentioned the firearm enhancements during the
May 2022 hearing, defendant further argues the trial court erred by failing to engage in a

                                             6
separate analysis as to whether striking the prior serious felony enhancement would have
endangered public safety. Noting that the prior serious felony enhancement only
involved a five-year term, as opposed to the term of 13 years four months imposed on the
firearm enhancements, defendant argues it is probable that the trial court would have
found that reducing a sentence by five years would be in the furtherance of justice. In
addition, notes defendant, the firearm enhancements were based on defendant’s conduct
while committing the underlying offenses in this case. However, the prior serious felony
enhancement is based on defendant’s prior conduct and is not directly related to
defendant’s actions in the current crimes. Finally, defendant argues, the court failed to
properly consider his good behavior while incarcerated.
       Assuming without deciding that defendant is entitled to appellate review of the
court’s May 2022 ruling on his motion for reconsideration, we find defendant’s
contentions without merit. In giving its detailed explanation in March 2022 as to why it
was declining to strike the enhancements, the trial court initially noted that it had given
“great weight” to the five mitigating circumstances outlined in section 1385 that were
present here: (1) multiple enhancements were alleged (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(B));
(2) applying the enhancements resulted in a sentence of over 20 years (§ 1385, subd.
(c)(2)(C)); (3) there was evidence of childhood trauma and neglect (§ 1385, subd.
(c)(2)(E)); (4) defendant was only 15 years old when he committed the assault that was
the basis for the prior serious felony enhancement (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(G)); and (5) the
assault conviction was from 1997, making it more than five years old (§ 1385, subd.
(c)(2)(H)). In specifically mentioning that defendant was a juvenile when he committed
the assault and that the assault conviction was more than five years old, the trial court
made clear it was considering the section 1385 mitigating circumstances with respect to
the firearm and prior serious felony enhancements.
       The trial court reasoned that, nonetheless, these circumstances were outweighed
by the danger that defendant posed to others and to the community, meaning it was not in

                                              7
the furtherance of justice to strike or dismiss the enhancements. The court cited multiple
reasons why it considered defendant to be a danger to the community, including that
defendant had: (1) used a gun in both the 1997 and 2010 crimes; (2) armed himself again
for the current crimes despite being prohibited from doing so due to his prior convictions;
(3) committed serious current crimes that involved great violence, threat of great bodily
injury, sophistication, and planning; and (4) perjured himself during trial and denied any
culpability for the charged offenses. The court specifically went through this analysis for
both the firearm and the prior serious felony enhancements.
       It is reasonable to infer that, during the May 2022 hearing, the trial court had in
mind its very detailed and specific analysis as to all the enhancements from March 2022,
especially since the court stated it stood by that analysis. Moreover, the court never
indicated that it had changed its central analysis regarding the danger that defendant
posed to public safety. As it did in March 2022, the court in May 2022 stressed again
that it continued to be concerned that defendant had lied under oath and had previously
used firearms. In addition, the court clearly stated that it had “fully” considered
defendant’s good behavior in prison and his participation in prison programs. As such,
although it may have only expressly referenced the firearm enhancements during the May
2022 hearing, the court gave no indication that it was inclined to change its mind and
dismiss or strike the prior serious felony enhancement. Given the general rule that we
presume that the trial court was aware of and understood the scope of its authority and
discretion under the applicable law (People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114), we
find no error.

                                              8
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                      /s/
                                                  BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

    /s/
RENNER, Acting P. J.

    /s/
HORST, J.

 Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              9