People v. Steve CA5

Filed 12/17/24 P. v. Steve 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085851 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F09903732) v.

LEVITICUS IVORY STEVE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Houry A. Sanderson, Judge. Paul Stubb, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Christina Hitomi Simpson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant Leviticus Ivory Steve contends on appeal that the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.751 must be vacated and remanded for resentencing because his section 288, subdivision (a), conviction is not a disqualifying prior conviction under section 1172.75, subdivision (a). The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On March 11, 2010, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant with first degree residential robbery (§ 211; counts 1 & 2). The information further alleged defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The prosecution further alleged defendant had suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b)–(i), and 1170.12, subdivisions (a)–(d), to wit, a February 2000 conviction for violating section 288 (lewd act on a person under 14 years of age). On May 27, 2010, a jury found defendant guilty on counts 1 and 2 and found all enhancements and prior convictions true. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 31 years eight months in state prison. On April 27, 2012, defendant was resentenced, and the trial court exercised its discretion to strike the one-year eight-month term for the prior enhancement as to count 2. (§ 667.5, subd. (a)(1).) On October 8, 2021, Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) was passed, invalidating all section 667.5, subdivision (b), one-year prison prior enhancements imposed prior to January 1, 2020, except for prior convictions for sexually violent