Opinion
A164174
09-13-2022
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDUARDO CHAPARRO-ESQUIVEL, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. 233934, 18012938)
SIMONS, ACTING P.J.
Eduardo Chaparro-Esquivel (appellant) appeals from the judgment following his guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)). We affirm.
All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
In 2011, appellant drove his vehicle into the victim, inflicting injuries that left the victim in a persistent vegetative state. (People v. Chaparro-Esquivel (Feb. 17, 2017, A145665) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2015, a jury convicted appellant of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), mayhem (§ 203), and torture (§ 206). (People v. Chaparro-Esquivel, supra, A145665.)
We grant appellant's unopposed request for judicial notice of certain records from his previous appeal.
The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of life in prison on the torture count, and imposed but stayed pursuant to section 654 sentences of eight years on the assault count and four years on the mayhem count. In 2017, this court affirmed the judgment and the Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for review. (People v. Chaparro-Esquivel, supra, A145665, rev. denied Apr. 26, 2017.)
Subsequently, the victim died and the People filed a complaint charging appellant with the victim's murder. In 2021, appellant pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to a term of 11 years in prison, stayed pursuant to section 654. Appellant appeals from this judgment.
Following appellant's sentencing, effective January 1, 2022, section 654 was amended by Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (A.B. 518). (People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379 (Mani).) "Previously, where Penal Code section 654 applied, the sentencing court was required to impose the sentence that 'provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment' and stay execution of the other term. (Pen. Code, § 654, former subd. (a).) As amended by Assembly Bill 518, Penal Code section 654 now provides the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence." (Mani, at p. 379.)
Appellant argues that, under amended section 654, the trial court has the discretion to execute the sentence for either voluntary manslaughter, assault, or mayhem, and stay the torture and other remaining sentences. Appellant is mistaken.
"Our precedent holds that 'new laws that reduce the punishment for a crime are presumptively to be applied to defendants whose judgments are not yet final.' [Citation.] When that presumption applies, its retroactivity rule extends to all 'nonfinal judgments.'" (People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 158 (Padilla).) This presumption applies to amended section 654. (Mani, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p. 379.)
Although "we have approved laws that alter indisputably final cases when they create new rules or procedures by which a defendant may seek relief" (Padilla, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 161), appellant does not contend A.B. 518 enacted such a law.
Appellant's 2021 manslaughter judgment is not yet final. Therefore, were there multiple counts in that judgment subject to section 654, he would be entitled to the benefit of A.B. 518. However, his 2015 judgment for torture, assault, and mayhem is final. "A case is final when 'the criminal proceeding as a whole' has ended [citation] and 'the courts can no longer provide a remedy to a defendant on direct review.'" (Padilla, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 161.) Appellant's 2015 judgment was affirmed on direct appeal, the Supreme Court denied review, and no remedy is available for that judgment.
Appellant suggests the trial court's 2021 sentence staying his manslaughter sentence pursuant to section 654 in light of the 2015 term has reopened his 2015 judgment, and relies on Padilla, supra, 13 Cal.5th 152. In Padilla, following a successful petition for habeas relief, the defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing. (Id. at p. 159.) The Supreme Court held that a retroactive ameliorative law taking effect after the defendant's sentence was vacated was applicable to his resentencing because his case was no longer final: "When Padilla's sentence was vacated, the trial court regained the jurisdiction and duty to consider what punishment was appropriate for him, and Padilla regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed. His judgment thus became nonfinal." (Id. at pp. 161-162; see also id. at p. 168 ["When a defendant's sentence has been vacated, the parties' interests in repose and finality are necessarily diminished; at that point, the countervailing interest in effectuating current legislative policy decisions may appropriately control."].)
Although the Supreme Court opinion in Padilla did not issue until after briefing in this case was complete, appellant relied on the Court of Appeal opinion then under review and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Padilla is nothing like the case before us. Appellant's 2015 sentence was not vacated or even impacted by his 2021 sentencing. Because A.B. 518 applies only to appellant's 2021 judgment, and the 2021 judgment involved only one count, A.B. 518 could have no impact on the sentence. We affirm.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur. BURNS, J. WISEMAN, J. [*]
[*] Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.