People v. Boudolf CA3

Filed 8/23/24 P. v. Boudolf CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099773

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-FE- 2012-0002123) v.

LOUIS HENRY BOUDOLF,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Louis Henry Boudolf appeals following his resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues and asked that we exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant’s counsel notified

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

him that he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief asserting arguments he wanted us to consider, and defendant filed such a brief raising numerous contentions. Having considered defendant’s supplemental brief in accordance with People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In 2012, a jury found defendant guilty of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, dissuading a witness by force or threat of force, two counts of first degree robbery, first degree burglary, and transportation or sale of a controlled substance. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 34 years four months in state prison, comprising: The upper term of four years for the principal assault with a deadly weapon count, doubled to eight years due to a prior serious felony conviction, plus a three-year great bodily injury enhancement; a consecutive middle term of three years for dissuading a witness, doubled to six years; two consecutive terms of one year four months for each robbery, both of which were doubled to two years eight months; two consecutive terms of one year, doubled to two years, for each of the remaining assaults; a concurrent term of three years, doubled to six years, for the controlled substance offense; a concurrent term of four years, doubled to eight years, for the burglary; a five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction; and two one-year enhancements for prior prison terms. On appeal, this court modified defendant’s sentence by staying two of the two- year sentences for assault and directed the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to indicate that it had only imposed two one-year prior prison term enhancements, not three. This reduced defendant’s aggregate sentence to 29 years four months. In 2022, the trial court determined defendant’s sentence included a one-year prior prison term enhancement that the Legislature had repealed and so recalled defendant’s sentence pursuant to section 1172.75 and scheduled a resentencing hearing. Defendant argued that, in addition to striking the two repealed enhancements, the trial court should also strike his prior serious felony conviction, the five-year enhancement based on the