People v. Miller CA5

Filed 9/25/24 P. v. Miller CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F087122 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF43303) v.

DUSTIN LEON MILLER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Kevin M. Seibert, Judge. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Jamie A. Scheidegger, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant Dustin Leon Miller appeals from a September 7, 2023 judgment of the Tuolumne County Superior Court. He contends the dismissal of an on-bail enhancement (Pen. Code,1 § 12022.1) is mandated by section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(B)–(C), added by Senate Bill No. 81 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 81) (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1). We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND2 At a February 23, 2015 sentencing hearing for five cases involving defendant, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 28 years and 8 months: In case No. CRF43470, defendant received four years doubled to eight years pursuant to the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)) for possession of methamphetamine in jail (§ 4573.6). In case No. CRF43303, defendant received eight months doubled to 16 months pursuant to the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)) for possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) plus three years for a prior drug conviction (id., § 11370.2, subd. (c)). He also received a concurrent 180 days for possession of a device used for smoking a controlled substance (id., former § 11364.1, subd. (a)). In case No. CRF43353, defendant received a concurrent one year for possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). In case No. CRF44734, via plea agreement, defendant received eight months doubled to 16 months pursuant to the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)) for willful

1 Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent statutory citations refer to the Penal Code. 2 “Since this appeal does not raise any issue regarding the facts of the underlying offense[s,] we will omit the traditional statement of facts.” (People v. White (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 914, 916, fn. 2.)