Court Opinion

ID: 9951399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 22:02:42.621242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:00.636603
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/15/24 P. v. Moran 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  B319525, B323135

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. TA148155)
         v.

ANTHONY RAMIREZ
MORAN,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Allen Joseph Webster, Jr., Judge. Reversed and
remanded.
      Patrick J. Hoynoski; California Appellate Project, Richard
Lennon and Olivia Meme, 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, Scott A. Taryle and Daniel C. Chang,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                     I.     INTRODUCTION

       Defendant Anthony Ramirez Moran appeals from a
judgment of conviction following a jury trial. He contends that:
(1) the trial court erred when it imposed a concurrent sentence on
one of his counts of conviction, in violation of Penal Code1 section
654; and (2) he is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of recent
changes to the sentencing laws, specifically sections 654, 1170,
and 1385. We reverse defendant’s sentence and remand for
resentencing.

                      II.   BACKGROUND

A.    The Underlying Crimes

      On January 31, 2019, defendant, who was then 23 years
old, was riding as a passenger in a car when he stopped Rene
Montalvo and asked for the location and the time. When
Montalvo took his phone out of his pocket, defendant and another
man got out of the car. The other man started punching
Montalvo and defendant shot Montalvo beneath his left arm pit.
Defendant and the other man then took Montalvo’s cell phone,
which Montalvo had dropped on the ground.

B.    Procedural History and Sentencing

      As relevant for purposes of this appeal, on July 28, 2021,
the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant by
amended information with attempted second degree robbery

1     Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
(§§ 664, 221, count 2) and assault with a semiautomatic firearm
(§ 245, subd. (b), count 3).2 The information also alleged certain
sentencing enhancements. The jury found defendant guilty of
counts 2 and 3 and found true a personal use of a firearm
allegation and a great bodily injury allegation. (§§ 12022.5,
subds. (a) and (d), 12022.7, subd. (a).)
      On August 31, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to
the upper term of nine years for count 3 and added three years
for the great bodily injury allegation and four years for the
personal use of a firearm allegation, for a total sentence of 16
years in state prison. For count 2, the court sentenced defendant
to the upper term of three years, to be served concurrently with
the sentence for count 3. The court stayed the personal use of a
firearm allegation for count 2 pursuant to section 654. Defendant
timely appealed.

                       III.   DISCUSSION

A.    Section 1170

       Defendant contends that because his conviction is not yet
final, he is entitled to retroactive application of Senate Bill
No. 567, which, effective January 1, 2022, made certain
ameliorative changes to section 1170, subdivision (b). (Stats.
2021, ch. 731, § 1.3.) Specifically, section 1170, subdivision (b)
now makes “the middle term the presumptive sentence for a term
of imprisonment unless certain circumstances exist” and creates
a “presumption in favor of a low prison term when a defendant is

2     The District Attorney also charged defendant with three
other counts, for which the jury returned verdicts of not guilty.

                                 3
under 26 years of age at the time of the offense. [Citations.]”
(People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1038.)
      The Attorney General concedes that defendant is entitled to
retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 567, and we agree.
(People v. Jones (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 37, 45 (Jones).) The
parties also agree that a remand for resentencing is appropriate.

B.    Section 654

       Defendant next contends that the trial court erred when it
imposed the sentence for count 2 to run concurrently with the
sentence for count 3, in violation of section 654, which prohibits
the imposition of more than one sentence for the same crime.
(§ 654.) He also argues that he is entitled to resentencing under
newly enacted Assembly Bill No. 518, which amended “section
654, subdivision (a) to provide, in pertinent part: ‘An act or
omission that is punishable in different ways by different
provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions,
but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more
than one provision.’ (Italics added.) Previously, where . . .
section 654 applied, the sentencing court was required to impose
the sentence that ‘provides for the longest potential term of
imprisonment’ and stay execution of the other term. (. . . § 654,
former subd. (a).) As amended by Assembly Bill [No.] 518 . . .
section 654 now provides the trial court with discretion to impose
and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the
trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather
than the longer sentence.” (People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th
343, 379.)

                                4
       The Attorney General concedes that the trial court erred in
imposing a concurrent sentence on count 2. He also concedes
that defendant is entitled to retroactive application of Assembly
Bill No. 518. (See Jones, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 45.) The
concessions are appropriate. Attempted robbery and assault of
the same victim during the robbery share the same intent and
thus cannot be punished separately. (In re Henry (1966) 65
Cal.2d 330, 331; see People v. Mitchell (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 349,
354 [“It has long been recognized that where a defendant is
convicted of robbery and other crimes incidental to the robbery
such as assault, section 654 precludes punishment for both
crimes”].) Accordingly, the court erred when it imposed a
concurrent sentence on count 2. It should instead have stayed
that sentence pursuant to section 654 as it existed at that time.
(People v. Dydouangphan (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 772, 779.)
       Despite these concessions, the Attorney General maintains
that a remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion under
section 654, subdivision (a) is unnecessary because the record
“‘“clearly indicate[s]”’” that the court would have reached the
same conclusion—choosing the assault with a semiautomatic
firearm conviction as the punishable offense—even if it had been
aware of its discretion. We are already remanding for a full
resentencing, however, so we need not attempt to decide whether
the trial court would reach the same conclusion. The trial court
will be able to decide for itself. (See People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7
Cal.5th 415, 424–425 [“the full resentencing rule allows a court to
revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a

                                 5
defendant”]; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893; Jones,
supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 46.)3

                      IV.    DISPOSITION

       The sentence is vacated and the matter remanded to the
trial court for a full resentencing consistent with this opinion.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                           KIM, J.

We concur:

             BAKER, Acting P. J.

             MOOR, J.

3     Defendant also contends that we should direct the trial
court, on remand, “to consider the amendments to [section] 1385
in deciding whether to dismiss any or all of [defendant’s
sentencing] enhancements[.]” We disagree. The court is capable
in the first instance of exercising its sentencing authority without
any such direction.

                                    6