Court Opinion

ID: 9368331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 19:02:22.524196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.006879
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/3/23 P. v. Orozco 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                       (Amador)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096368

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. No. 19-CR-29234)

           v.

 HECTOR OROZCO,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Hector Orozco has asked this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right
to file a supplemental brief. Defendant filed a letter brief arguing the trial court erred in
imposing a two-year low term prison sentence and instead should have imposed one-third

                                                             1
of the applicable middle term pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170.01, subdivision (a).
We affirm.
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         In March 2019, while defendant was incarcerated in state prison, a correctional
officer found two bindles in defendant’s pocket. The officer tested one of the bindles and
confirmed it was methamphetamine. One of the bindles weighed 4.1 grams, while the
other weighed 1.5 grams, without packaging.
         During the preliminary hearing, the officer testified that a typical
methamphetamine user will use one-half gram per day. In the officer’s experience, 5.6
grams was a large amount of methamphetamine and indicated defendant possessed the
drugs for sale.
         Defendant confirmed during his preliminary hearing testimony that the bindles
both contained methamphetamine. He explained that the drugs were for his personal use,
and he had a larger amount because he would typically buy enough for one or two weeks
at a time.
         Defendant was charged with possession for sale of a controlled substance and
possession of contraband in a state correctional facility. It was further alleged defendant
had four prior strikes. The trial court granted defendant’s request to represent himself.
         In March 2022, defendant requested a court trial and waived his right to a jury
trial.
         In May 2022, while defendant was still incarcerated, the parties agreed to submit
the matter to the trial court based on the preliminary hearing transcript and the opinion of
defendant’s expert. The parties further agreed that defendant would be found guilty of
possession of contraband in a correctional facility, the enhancement allegations would be

1        Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                2
dismissed, and defendant would be sentenced to the low term of two years consecutive to
the sentence he was currently serving. Following the parties’ agreement, the trial court
found defendant guilty of possession of contraband in a correctional facility, acquitted
him of possession for sale, struck the strike enhancements, and sentenced defendant to
two years in prison consecutive. The trial court also imposed various fines and fees.
       Defendant timely appealed.
                                      DISCUSSION
                                               I
       Without any citation to the record, defendant states that in 2014 (while he was
serving a 34-year four-month sentence) he was involved in a prison riot. He claims he
was charged with felony possession of a deadly weapon by a prison inmate and was
ultimately convicted in 2016 of misdemeanor participation in a riot. According to
defendant, the trial court sentenced him to one year in county jail consecutive to his
underlying prison term.
       Defendant argues this misdemeanor conviction was his first in-prison offense for
all sentencing purposes. Despite stipulating to a two-year consecutive term, defendant
points to section 1170.1, subdivisions (a) and (c) and argues the trial court was required
to sentence him to one-third the middle term (or one year) rather than the two-year term it
imposed. He asks us to remand the matter for a full resentencing hearing. Even
assuming that defendant has not forfeited this contention and has provided an adequate
record, we find no merit in his contentions.
       The general rule for imposing determinate sentences on more than one offense
provides: “Except as otherwise provided by law, and subject to Section 654, when any
person is convicted of two or more felonies, whether in the same proceeding or court or
in different proceedings or courts, and whether by judgment rendered by the same or by a
different court, and a consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed under Sections 669
and 1170, the aggregate term of imprisonment for all these convictions shall be the sum

                                               3
of the principal term, the subordinate term, and any additional term imposed for
applicable enhancements for prior convictions, prior prison terms, and Section 12022.1.
The principal term shall consist of the greatest term of imprisonment imposed by the
court for any of the crimes, including any term imposed for applicable specific
enhancements. The subordinate term for each consecutive offense shall consist of one-
third of the middle term of imprisonment prescribed for each other felony conviction for
which a consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed, and shall include one-third of the
term imposed for any specific enhancements applicable to those subordinate offenses.”
(§ 1170.1, subd. (a).)
       One exception to this rule is found in subdivision (c) of section 1170.1, which
states: “In the case of any person convicted of one or more felonies committed while the
person is confined in the state prison . . . and . . . the court imposes consecutive terms, the
term of imprisonment for all the convictions that the person is required to serve
consecutively shall commence from the time the person would otherwise have been
released from prison. If the new offenses are consecutive with each other, the principal
and subordinate terms shall be calculated as provided in subdivision (a). This subdivision
shall be applicable in cases of convictions of more than one offense in the same or
different proceedings.”
       As courts have explained, “ ‘ “The statutory scheme makes clear that such
felonies, i.e., those felonies committed in prison, are exempt from the general sentencing
scheme. [Citation.] A sentence under [section 1170.01,] subdivision (c) is longer than a
sentence imposed under subdivision (a) because the in-prison offenses are fully
consecutive to the sentence for the offense for which the defendant was in prison. Using
sentencing jargon ‘the in-prison offense is treated as a new principal term rather than as a
subordinate term to the out-of-prison offense.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Brantley (2019)
43 Cal.App.5th 917, 922.)

                                               4
       Despite defendant’s contention that the trial court should have treated the sentence
for the conviction at issue here as a subordinate term to his 2016 conviction (and
therefore imposed a one-year sentence instead of two years), his 2016 conviction was for
a misdemeanor. Section 1170.1, subdivision (c) makes clear that it only applies to
“felonies committed while the person is confined in state prison.” Given the clear
language of the statute, we conclude that the trial court did not err in considering the
conviction at issue here as his first in-prison offense and imposing a two-year lower term.
(See Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park & Open-Space Dist. (2009)
46 Cal.4th 282, 288 [where a statute’s language is unambiguous, the plain meaning
controls].)
                                             II
       We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                  /s/
                                                  Robie, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
Mauro, J.

/s/
Boulware Eurie, J.

                                              5