People v. Smith CA4/3

Filed 10/16/24 P. v. Smith CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063591

v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB18000008)

ALONZO LERON SMITH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Steve Malone, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Matthew A. Siroka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2018, defendant Alonzo Smith pleaded no contest to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)),1 three counts of aggravated assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and one count of criminal threats (§ 422.) He also admitted one prison prior under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Per the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to 10 years in state prison as follows: (1) six years for the voluntary manslaughter; (2) one year for each of the aggravated assaults; and (3) one year for the prior prison term. In September 2022, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court requesting relief under section 1172.75 and other sentencing reform statutes. The habeas court denied the petition but directed the court clerk to place the matter on calendar for resentencing. At the subsequent resentencing hearing in September 2023, the trial court held it lacked jurisdiction to resentence defendant. Defendant appeals from that order. Defendant raises three arguments on appeal. First, he contends the court had jurisdiction to strike the one-year sentence enhancement for his prior prison term because the habeas court placed the matter on calendar for resentencing. Second, he argues he was entitled to request full resentencing. Finally, assuming a full resentencing were to occur, defendant claims the prosecution cannot withdraw from the plea agreement. We agree the trial court had jurisdiction to strike the one-year sentence enhancement but for reasons different from those articulated by defendant. The court had jurisdiction because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified defendant as eligible for