People v. Carranza CA2/6

Filed 8/29/24 P. v. Carranza CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B334435 (Super. Ct. No. CR16324) Plaintiffs and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JAIME GRIEGO CARRANZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jaime Griego Carranza appeals the trial court’s post- judgment order striking his Penal Code section 667.5 (b)1 enhancements and resentencing him under section 1172.75. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requested we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed two

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to

the Penal Code

supplemental briefs, in propria persona, raising no issues of merit. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1981, appellant was convicted by jury of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and assault with intent to murder (former § 217, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found true appellant had used a deadly weapon in the commission of these offenses. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) He was also found to have three prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced him to state prison for an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for the murder and a consecutive determinate term of four years for the assault. This sentence was enhanced by two years for the weapon use in each crime and three years for the prior prison terms. Following the passage of Senate Bill 483, which eliminated enhancements for prior prison terms, appellant’s case was referred to the sentencing court by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Appellant filed a statement in mitigation asking the court to strike all the enhancements and run the determinate term concurrent. The statement cited appellant’s childhood trauma, mental health issues, and participation in prison rehabilitative programs. The prosecution filed an opposition arguing appellant was not entitled to re-sentencing because as determinate terms, his sentence on the enhancements was served prior to the start of his indeterminate term. The prosecution also argued that even if appellant was eligible for re-sentencing, he should not be re- sentenced because of the violent nature of the offense, his prior criminal history, and his continued violence in prison. Following a hearing, the court struck the prior prison term enhancements but declined to strike the weapon enhancements