THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE DEGANTE, Defendant and Appellant.
G063563
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 3/11/25
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS.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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JESSE DEGANTE,
Defendant and Appellant.
G063563
(Super. Ct. No. 16WF0088)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 10, 2025, be modified as follows:
On the caption page, delete case number “16WF008” and insert in its place the following: “16WF0088.”
There is no change in the judgment.
O‘LEARY, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
GOETHALS, J.
SANCHEZ, J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JESSE DEGANTE,
Defendant and Appellant.
G063563
(Super. Ct. No. 16WF008)
O P I N I O N
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Sylvia W. Beckham, 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, A. Natasha Cortina and Elizabeth M. Renner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2016, as relevant to this appeal, a jury found Degante guilty of attempted robbery (
Degante was sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 years. The trial court imposed the middle term of two years for the attempted robbery, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law based on the 2013 conviction, plus a one-year enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. According to the minute order, the court imposed two five-year enhancements pursuant to
On November 13, 2023, the public defender filed a petition for recall and resentencing on Degante‘s behalf noting that “[Degante‘s] name and case number appear[ed] on the [Senate Bill No.] 483 [(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)] list provided by the [state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] to the Court, District Attorney, and Public Defender.” On November 28, 2023, the trial court found Degante was ineligible for relief pursuant to
The trial court‘s order denying relief in this case stated, “If Defendant appeals this decision, the briefing, oral and written arguments, transcripts, decision, and minutes in [People v. Banuelos, Orange County Superior Court case No. 16CF3259, and People v. Eckstein, Orange County Superior Court case No.17CF0713, are] to be part of the trial court record for any action appeal.” This necessitated the record in this appeal to be augmented with portions of the records of the two unrelated cases referenced by the court.
DISCUSSION
We begin by addressing the trial court‘s failure to pronounce a sentence on the one-year prior prison term enhancement that is the basis for this appeal. Had the court, Degante, or the Attorney General in the underlying appeal been aware of the conflict between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order and abstract of judgment, this court would
Initially, Degante argues remand is not appropriate and is unnecessary. He asserts the trial court has already ordered what the minute order and abstract reflect, and correction is unnecessary. Alternatively he argues, had this court caught the error in the underlying appeal, the judgment would have been corrected by modification then. Degante appears to be arguing against the Attorney General‘s position that the appropriate remedy is for this court to remand the matter for “administrative correction” as opposed to resentencing.
As we explain below, where there is a sentence on a one-year sentence enhancement for a prior prison term, that enhancement is now legally invalid even when the sentence has been stayed or stricken. On remand the trial court must address the enhancement and apply the provisions of
Effective January 1, 2022,
Degante argues the plain language of
Both parties rely on the statutory language and interpretation for their conclusions. We agree the question is resolved by statutory interpretation.
The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo, under well-settled standards. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961.) In interpreting a statute, “‘[o]ur fundamental task . . . is
Under
The issue of a lesser sentence was addressed in Christianson. The court reasoned that a stayed enhancement “result[s] in a lesser sentence” under
In Gonzalez, our Supreme Court recognized the term “imposed” could encompass enhancements that were imposed and executed and enhancements that were imposed and stayed, but stated, “‘[A]s a practical matter, the word “impose” is often employed as shorthand to refer to the first situation . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Gonzalez, supra, 43 Cal.4th 1118 at p. 1125.) Construing the term in the context of the statutory scheme before it, the court held that “imposed” in
We acknowledge the well-reasoned dissent in People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, review granted October 23, 2024, S286987, which concludes that where the punishment for an enhancement was stricken, the enhancement has not been imposed within the meaning of
When an enhancement is found to be true by a trial court or a jury, or admitted by the defendant, it becomes part of the judgment and must be addressed as part of the sentencing process. A sentence on the enhancement may be imposed and executed so that the defendant serves an additional term of imprisonment. Or the court may stay or strike the enhancement so that the enhancement does not increase the defendant‘s sentence. Whether or not the sentence is increased because of the enhancement, the enhancement is accounted for in the judgment and the abstract. We do not draw a distinction in terms of the application of
The order denying Degante‘s request for recall and resentencing is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Upon conclusion of the new sentencing hearing, the court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
O‘LEARY, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
GOETHALS, J.
SANCHEZ, J.