Court Opinion

ID: 9749193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:27:24.19634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:44.936508
License: Public Domain

GRIGNON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which concludes the trial court properly imposed a three-year gang enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)1 on defendant Efren Hernandez’s 25-year-to-life sentence for first degree murder. I concur in the balance of the majority opinion.
In the first place, the majority mistakenly attributes to defendant Hernandez an argument which he does not make. Defendant Hernandez contends the trial court erred when it imposed a three-year gang enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) instead of a 15-year minimum term pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4).2 He does not contend the 15-year minimum term supersedes the mandatory 25-year minimum term of Penal Code section 190, subdivisions (a) and (e). In fact, he raises no issue concerning the effect of the 15-year minimum term, probably in the hope it will be subsumed in the 25-year minimum term for the murder.
Second, I disagree with the majority on the merits. Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) provides in relevant part that, except as provided in subparagraph (b)(4), a consecutive one-, two- or three-year enhancement is to be imposed on defendants who are convicted of felonies committed in connection with criminal street gangs.3 Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4) provides in relevant part: “Any person who violates this subdivision in the commission of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life, shall not be paroled until a minimum of 15 calendar years have been served.” This language is crystal clear. Where a defendant receives a life sentence, the 15-year minimum term applies instead of the one-, *1369two- or three-year enhancement. (People v. Ortiz (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 480, 485-486 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 126].)
In this case, defendant Hernandez was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life for first degree murder pursuant to Penal Code section 190, subdivision (a). He is entitled to no conduct credit against the 25-year minimum term and thus must serve 25 calendar years before he is eligible for parole. (Pen. Code, § 190, subd. (e).) Defendant Hernandez was further sentenced to a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the personal firearm discharge pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d). Because defendant Hernandez personally discharged a firearm in the commission of the murder, the gang penalties may be imposed in addition to the personal firearm discharge penalty. (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (e).) Thus, for the murder of Ramon Regis, defendant Hernandez was subject to the following sentence: 25 years to life, consecutive to 25 years to life, with a 15-year minimum term.
Penal Code section 3046 sets forth the parole eligibility of persons serving a life sentence. If the life sentence does not include a minimum term, the prisoner must serve seven calendar years before he or she is eligible for parole. If the life sentence includes a minimum period of confinement greater than seven years, the prisoner must serve the minimum period of confinement before he or she is eligible for parole.4 If a prisoner has been sentenced to consecutive life sentences, the prisoner must serve the minimum term on each life sentence, before he or she is eligible for parole. Thus, defendant Hernandez must serve 25 years on each of his two consecutive life sentences before he is first eligible for parole.5
The question (although largely academic in this case) remains as to the effect of the 15-year minimum term provided by the gang statute. There is *1370no statutory provision prescribing a mandatory effect. The 15-year minimum term is not a sentence enhancement, but rather is an alternate penalty for the underlying felony conviction.6 (People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 101 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 893, 980 P.2d 441].) Since the penalty for the underlying felony is greater than the alternate gang minimum term, the gang minimum term has no mandatory effect. However, it is one of the considerations the Board of Prison Terms may take into account when granting or denying parole to a prisoner who is eligible for parole.
I would conclude that the trial court erred when it imposed the three-year gang enhancement on defendant Hernandez’s 25-year-to-life sentence and would modify the sentence to vacate the three-year enhancement and impose a 15-year minimum term. I would similarly modify defendant Juan Gabriel Herrera’s sentence.
Petitions for a rehearing were denied June 1, 2001, and June 4, 2001, and appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 22, 2001.

 All statutes cited in this opinion are those in effect in 1999 at the time the offenses were committed. The statutes have been amended subsequently in ways that do not affect the conclusions reached in this opinion.

 Subdivision (b)(4) of Penal Code section 186.22 has been renumbered as (b)(5).

 Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) provided: “Except as provided in paragraph (4), any person who is convicted of a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members, shall, upon conviction of that felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has been convicted, be punished by an additional term of one, two, or three years at the court’s discretion.”

 Penal Code section 3046 provided: “No prisoner imprisoned under a life sentence may be paroled until he or she has served at least seven calendar years or has served a term as established pursuant to any other section of law that establishes a minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before eligibility for parole, whichever is greater. Where two or more life sentences are ordered to run consecutively to each other pursuant to Section 669, no prisoner so imprisoned may be paroled until he or she has served at least seven calendar years, or has served a term as established pursuant to any other section of law that establishes a minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before eligibility for parole, on each of the life sentences which are ordered to run consecutively, whichever is greater. The Board of Prison Terms shall, in considering a parole for a prisoner, consider all statements and recommendations which may have been submitted by the judge, district attorney, and sheriff, pursuant to Section 1203.01, or in response to notices given under Section 3042, and recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of the parole. The board shall enter on its order granting or denying parole to these prisoners, the fact that the statements and recommendations have been considered by it.”

 This discussion ignores for purposes of clarity the consecutive life sentence for the attempted murder of Jose Cruz with a 15-year minimum term, and the consecutive personal firearm discharge 25-year-to-life term.

 In the context of a 25-year-to-life sentence for first degree murder, Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District described the 15-year minimum term as “an extended parole eligibility date." (People v. Ortiz, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 486.) It is unclear whether the appellate court intended the 15-year minimum term to be “consecutive” to the 25-year minimum term. Although this “consecutive” effect might be the most rational result, I can find no basis for it in the Penal Code.