Court Opinion

ID: 9911743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 19:02:23.816097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:02.147476
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/20/23 P. v. Tugas CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 2d Crim. No. B320929
                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 20F-01446)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                            (San Luis Obispo County)

 v.

 LARIO GARCIA TUGAS,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Lario Garcia Tugas appeals from the judgment after a jury
convicted him of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2,
subd. (a), count 1),1 unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (§
10851, subd. (a), count 3), and driving on a suspended or revoked
license (§ 14601.1, subd. (a), count 4). The jury also found true
the allegation that appellant committed count 3 while out on bail
for count 1 (Pen. Code, § 12022.1). The trial court sentenced
appellant to four years eight months in state prison. Appellant

         1 All further statutory references are to the Vehicle Code
unless otherwise indicated.
contends this case should be remanded for resentencing because
the trial court attached the on-bail enhancement to the wrong
count. The People agree. We affirm the conviction and remand
the matter to the trial court for resentencing.
                 Factual and Procedural Background
       In February 2020, at approximately 2:30 a.m., a police
officer stopped appellant for speeding and crossing into another
lane and back without signaling. The officer ran a records check
and learned appellant’s license was suspended. When the officer
asked appellant for his keys, he refused. When the officer
instructed appellant to exit the vehicle, he started the engine and
sped away. A high-speed pursuit ensued but ended after the
officer lost sight of appellant’s vehicle. Appellant was
subsequently charged with recklessly evading a police officer (§
2800.2, subd. (a), count 1) and driving on a suspended or revoked
license (§ 14601.1, subd. (a), count 4).
       In July 2021, while appellant was released from custody on
bail for count 1, he was stopped by a police officer for driving a
motorcycle without a helmet. Appellant told the officer he was
not the registered owner of the motorcycle and did not have an
I.D. When the officer ran a records check on the motorcycle plate,
dispatch reported the plate belonged to a different motorcycle
with expired registration. During the officer’s investigation,
appellant repeatedly tried to start the motorcycle’s engine. The
officer told him to turn it off. The officer also observed the
ignition appeared to be “hotwired.” Appellant ignored the
officer’s commands, revved the throttle, and tried to accelerate.
The officer grabbed appellant by the jacket and pulled him to the
ground. Appellant broke free and fled on foot. It was later
discovered the motorcycle had been reported stolen.

                                2
       Appellant was charged with resisting an executive officer
(Pen. Code, § 69, count 2) and unlawful driving or taking of a
vehicle (§ 10851, subd. (a), count 3). It was further alleged that
appellant committed count 3 while released from custody on bail
for count 1. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.) In May 2022, the trial court
consolidated appellant’s charges from the two traffic stops into a
single case.
       A jury convicted appellant of counts 1, 3, and 4, and found
true the allegation that he committed count 3 while released from
custody on bail for count 1. The trial court sentenced appellant to
four years eight months in state prison. As to count 1, the trial
court imposed the midterm of two years and imposed a
consecutive two-year term “[f]or the jury’s true finding . . . that in
the commission of the offense [appellant was] released from
custody on bail.” As to count 3, the trial court imposed one third
the midterm, eight months. As to count 4, the trial court imposed
and stayed 180 days in county jail.
                              Discussion
       Appellant contends his sentence was unauthorized because
the trial court imposed the on-bail enhancement to the wrong
count, that is to count 1 rather than count 3. He contends the
enhancement should be stricken and the case remanded for
resentencing.
       The People agree and contend that while it is possible the
length of appellant’s sentence would likely have been the same
had the trial court used the proper count for the enhancement, “it
is not certain that the court would have selected the mid-term for
[c]ount 3 or would consider any other circumstances in its
discretion.”

                                  3
       Based on our review and consideration of the parties’
briefing, we agree that remand is appropriate. The transcript
from the sentencing hearing does not indicate what sentence the
trial court would have imposed had it understood that the on-bail
enhancement applied to count 3 and not to count 1. For this
reason, we are remanding the matter so the trial court can
exercise its discretion in that regard. (See People v. Buycks
(2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [“when part of a sentence is stricken on
review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all
counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its
sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances’”].)
                             Disposition
       The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to
strike the on-bail enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.1) imposed as
to count 1 and to conduct a new sentencing hearing. Upon
resentencing, the clerk of the superior court is ordered to forward
a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other
respects, the judgment is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     YEGAN, J.
We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             CODY, J.

                                 4
                  Jacquelyn H. Duffy, Judge
           Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
                _____________________________

     Robert L. Hernandez, 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, Stephanie C. Brenan, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, and Nancy LII Ladner, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.