92 Cal.App.5th 619
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- On May 7, 2018, inmates Jessie Farias and Fernando Miranda attacked and seriously injured a fellow inmate; a jury convicted both of multiple offenses and found most enhancements true.
- While the jury deliberated, defendants waived jury trials on alleged prior convictions and waived their presence for the bench trial on priors; the court took documentary evidence and later entered minute entries finding prior convictions "serious" under Penal Code §667(a) but the minutes, abstracts, and later sentencing recital were silent as to explicit Three Strikes (§667(d)-(e), §1170.12) findings.
- At sentencing the court imposed Three Strikes-based sentences (tripled terms) for both defendants, treating the priors as strikes; both defendants appealed the resulting judgments the same day.
- On appeal the court held the record is silent as to strike findings and treated that silence per In re Candelario as an inference of leniency, rendering the Three Strikes sentences unauthorized unless the trial court can clearly show the omission was a clerical error.
- Miranda separately challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that his 2009 conviction for violating §186.22(a) qualified as a "serious felony" under §667(a) in light of People v. Rodriguez (2012) and postconviction statutory amendments (Assembly Bill 333); the appellate court agreed substantial evidence was lacking and directed remand for retrial/apply amended law.
- The court also held that the postjudgment amendment to §654 (Assembly Bill 518) is ameliorative and applies on remand, permitting the trial court to exercise its new discretion in resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made sufficient "strike" findings to permit Three Strikes sentences | People: trial court implicitly found priors were strikes; abstracts and sentencing indicate strikes | Farias & Miranda: record lacks any explicit strike findings at bench priors hearing; Three Strikes sentence unauthorized | Court: Record silent re strikes; silence treated as leniency per Candelario; Three Strikes sentences vacated unless trial court can clearly show omission was clerical and correct nunc pro tunc |
| Whether Miranda's 2009 §186.22(a) conviction qualifies as a §667(a) "serious felony" given Rodriguez | People: prior conviction and later admissions/plea in related case suffice | Miranda: pre-Rodriguez conviction may not have required proof he acted with another gang member; insufficient evidence to meet post-Rodriguez elements | Court: Substantial evidence lacking that 2009 offense met Rodriguez standard; vacate serious-felony finding as to that prior and remand for retrial applying Rodriguez and amended §186.22 |
| Whether Miranda's 2014 §245(a)/§12022.7 enhancement supports a §667(a) serious-felony finding despite the enhancement sentence being "stricken" | People: abstract shows enhancement was found true even if time was stricken | Miranda: stricken sentence implies enhancement cannot be used to enhance later sentence | Court: Abstract shows enhancement finding remained though court struck time; substantial evidence supports that prior as a §667(a) serious felony |
| Whether amended §654 (AB 518) applies to resentencing and requires remand | Defendants: AB 518 is ameliorative and applies because appeal was pending; remand required | People: agree AB 518 applies but argue record shows court would not have changed result, so remand unnecessary | Court: AB 518 applies; remand is appropriate to permit trial court to exercise its new discretion (and remand is already required for other reasons) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Candelario, 3 Cal.3d 702 (treat silence in minutes/abstract as inference of leniency when enhancement findings are omitted)
- People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (clarified §186.22(a) requires proof that defendant committed felonious conduct with another gang member)
- People v. Strike, 45 Cal.App.5th 143 (applied Rodriguez to pre‑Rodriguez §186.22 convictions and required proof of post‑Rodriguez elements for strike use)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (ameliorative statutory changes apply to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (limitations on judicial factfinding about the content of prior convictions; remand for retrial where appropriate)
- People v. Tenner, 6 Cal.4th 559 (prosecution must prove sentence enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Barro, 93 Cal.App.4th 62 (treatment of dismissals under §1385 and effect on using prior convictions)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (when part of sentence is stricken on review, full resentencing may be appropriate)