Court Opinion

ID: 9950273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:02:38.500641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:36.629275
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/13/24 P. v. Ornelas CA4/1

                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D082988

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. FSB22002673)

 RAYMOND MICHAEL ORNELAS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Harold T. Wilson, Jr., Judge. Affirmed as modified.
         Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General,
Christopher P. Beesley and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      A jury convicted Raymond Michael Ornelas of assault with a

semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (b)), three counts of
possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), first degree burglary
(§ 459), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), simple assault (§ 240), criminal threats
(§ 422, subd. (a)), and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)). The jury found
true allegations that Ornelas personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)),
and that a person was present in the residence at the time of the first degree
burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)). In a bifurcated trial, the court found true that
Ornelas was released on bail at the time he committed four of the charged
offenses. At sentencing the court imposed a total term of 26 years and eight
months, including four two-year on-bail enhancements (§ 12022.1, subd. (b))
tied to specific counts; the court imposed two of those enhancements and
stayed the other two. Ornelas appeals, contending the trial court erred in
imposing more than one enhancement under section 12022.1, subdivision (b).
      The People properly concede the court erred in imposing multiple
enhancements under section 12022.1, subdivision (b). We modify the
judgment to strike the unauthorized portion of the sentence.
                                BACKGROUND
      Ornelas committed multiple crimes after authorities released him on

bail following his arrest in other cases.2 While out of custody on those
matters Ornelas, with a firearm, broke into a former girlfriend’s house, took
one of their shared children without the girlfriend’s consent, threatened to
shoot and kill his ex-girlfriend, and also assaulted her. After a trial on these

1     Future undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2     We provide an abbreviated summary of the facts because they are not
relevant to the issue on appeal.
                                        2
offenses, a jury convicted Ornelas of them and found true various allegations.
The court sentenced Ornelas to a total term of 26 years and eight months
which included four count-specific section 12022.1, subdivision (b)
enhancements for committing crimes while free on bail. Ornelas appeals,
asserting error in imposing sentences for multiple on-bail findings. The
People concede the error and do not oppose a sentence modification.
                                DISCUSSION
      As part of Ornelas’s sentence in this matter, the court erroneously
imposed four enhancements under section 12022.1, subdivision (b).
      Section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements relate to the nature of
the offender rather than the nature of the crimes charged. Consequently, a
trial court may only impose one section 12022.1, subdivision (b)
enhancement. (People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 90 [such enhancements
“do not attach to particular counts but instead are added just once as the
final step in computing the total sentence”], overruled on other grounds by
People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 398-402; People v. Mackabee (1989)
214 Cal.App.3d 1250, 1261-1262; People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d
181, 195-196.) Consequently, the court erred by imposing multiple section
12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements and tying those to specific counts.
The People properly concede that a court may only impose one 12022.1,
subdivision (b) enhancement in a case and do not oppose modification of the
sentence. We therefore modify the judgment to correct the error.
                                DISPOSITION
      The judgment is modified to strike all but one section 12022.1,
subdivision (b) enhancement. The remaining enhancement applies to the
entire case and not a particular count. The court is directed to prepare a
corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the defendant’s sentence as

                                       3
modified and to forward the corrected abstract of judgment to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed as
modified.

                                                           RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.

                                      4