People v. Vigil CA2/4

Filed 7/30/24 P. v. Vigil CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B327807

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA117413 v.

AARON ANTHONY VIGIL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mike Camacho, Judge. Remanded with instructions. William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is defendant and appellant Aaron Anthony Vigil’s third appeal. Because the issue presented here is narrow and straightforward, and because we are not publishing this opinion, we omit much of the factual and procedural background underlying Vigil’s convictions, sentencing, and prior appeals. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) That background information is largely contained in this court’s opinions resolving Vigil’s first two appeals, which we take judicial notice of and incorporate by reference. (People v. Vigil (Dec. 17, 2020, B298543) [nonpub. opn.] (Vigil I); People v. Vigil (Jul. 28, 2022, B315445) [nonpub. opn.] (Vigil II); Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, focusing on the narrow issue presented. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) That issue is as follows. In Vigil II, we remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to apply Assembly Bill No. 518 (AB 518). (Vigil II, supra, B315445.)1 On remand, the trial court exercised its discretion to deny Vigil relief under AB 518. On appeal, Vigil now argues his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective by not seeking relief in the trial court under Senate Bill No. 81 (SB 81). Effective January 1, 2022, SB 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended Penal Code2 section 1385 by adding subdivision (c), which requires courts to strike sentencing enhancements when it is in the interest of justice to do so, while affording great weight to