Opinion
D075828
05-20-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAIME MIGUEL ARTEAGA et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jamie Miguel Arteaga. Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Julian Dominguez. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCD268952) APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederick L. Link, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions. Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jamie Miguel Arteaga. Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Julian Dominguez. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2017, Jaime Miguel Arteaga and Julian Dominguez were convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The jury found the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also found that Arteaga personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
In a separate proceeding, Dominguez admitted two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)); a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) Arteaga admitted three prison priors, one serious felony prior and one strike prior. (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1) & (b)-(i); 667.5, subd. (b).)
In 2018, this court remanded Dominguez's case for resentencing. (People v. Dominguez (Dec. 20, 2018, D072771) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court sentenced Dominguez. The sentence included two one-year terms for the prison prior, the term for which was stayed by the trial court.
In 2018, this court also remanded Arteaga's case for resentencing. (People v. Arteaga (Dec. 21, 2018, D072068( [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court resentenced Arteaga to a 16-year term. The court imposed, and then stayed the terms for three prison priors.
Both Arteaga and Dominguez have filed timely notices of appeal. Their appeals contend the prison priors must be stricken in light of the changes in the law accomplished by Senate Bill No. 136, which they contend should be applied retroactively to their cases. The Attorney General properly agrees with the appellants that we should order the trial court to strike the prison priors as to each appellant. We also agree the court must strike the prison prior enhancements.
This appeal presents a pure question of law. The facts of the underlying convictions are not relevant to our analysis.
DISCUSSION
Effective January 1, 2020, prison priors such as alleged here no longer qualify for the one-year enhancement originally contained in section 667.5, subdivision (b). The parties agree that the provisions of Senate Bill No. 136 must be applied retroactively to those cases which were not final as of the effective date of the statute. (In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740; People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 682.)
The parties correctly agree the convictions in this case were not final prior to January 1, 2020. (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 306.)
We have reviewed the record, and we find the parties have correctly agreed that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the change in the law.
DISPOSITION
The sentence is modified to strike the prison prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) alleged as to each defendant. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment as to each defendant to reflect the changes and to forward an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgments are affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. AARON, J.