People v. Rivas CA2/8

Filed 12/6/24 P. v. Rivas CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B335934

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA083777) v.

MAURICIO RIVAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Terrell, Judge. Affirmed.

Randy S. Kravis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), we review this appeal of an order denying defendant and appellant Mauricio Rivas’s petition for resentencing brought under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former § 1170.95). We affirm. BACKGROUND Following a jury trial in 2017, defendant was found guilty of one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), and one count of premeditated attempted murder (§ 187, subd. (a), § 664; count 2). The jury found true gang and principal firearm use allegations (§ 186.22, § 12022.53, subds. (b)–(e)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b)–(j), § 1170.12) and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant as follows: 25 years to life on count 1, doubled due to the strike, plus a consecutive term of 25 years for the firearm enhancement; a consecutive term of seven years to life on count 2, doubled due to the strike, plus a consecutive term of 25 years for the firearm enhancement. The court imposed and stayed gang enhancements on both counts. The record does not reflect imposition of sentence on the prison prior. In 2019, we affirmed defendant’s conviction and remanded to the superior court for a resentencing hearing, directing the court to strike the gang enhancement, to recalculate custody credits and to exercise its sentencing discretion pursuant to changes effected by the passage of Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017– 2018 Reg. Sess.) during the pendency of that prior appeal. (People v. Espinoza (Aug. 15, 2019, B288107) [nonpub. opn.].)