People v. Partida CA3

Filed 9/16/24 P. v. Partida CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C098550

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22F02340)

ERIC MIRANDA PARTIDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Eric Miranda Partida of discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246 – count 1)1 and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2) – counts 2 and 3). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of four years, which included the middle term of three years on the count 2 conviction for assault with a firearm, designated as the principal count.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant now contends the trial court did not understand its discretion in sentencing him to the middle term on the principal count. Finding no merit in the contention, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Following the jury’s guilty verdicts, the trial court referred defendant’s case to the probation department (the department) for a report and recommendation on sentencing. In its report, the department noted there were no aggravating circumstances warranting an upper term and defendant did not have a substantial criminal history. It concluded there had been some provocation and it recommended a sentence of three years on count 1 and a stay of the sentences on counts 2 and 3. The People filed a sentencing memorandum urging the trial court to impose the middle term on one of the count 2 or 3 assault convictions, a consecutive one-third the middle term on the remaining assault conviction, and stay the term on the count 1 discharge of a firearm at a vehicle conviction. At sentencing in May 2023, the trial court said it had reviewed the department’s report and the People’s sentencing memorandum. The trial court also reviewed a letter from the intake director of a drug program that found defendant to be a suitable candidate. The trial court then gave its tentative sentencing decision. It found that defendant was not statutorily eligible for probation and that the circumstances were not unusual to warrant a grant of probation. It determined there had been insufficient provocation, defendant was not a youthful offender, and defendant was not experiencing mental health issues. It explained, however, that even if the circumstances had been unusual, it would not grant probation because the crimes were serious, defendant was an active participant, he had previously been convicted for carrying the same firearm, he did not have a job, he has no dependents, and he showed little remorse. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.414.) The trial court indicated that based on the overall picture, defendant was a danger to society.