People v. Mayes CA3

Filed 12/31/24 P. v. Mayes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100806

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2011-0007803) v.

STEDVIENO MAYES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Stedvieno Mayes appeals from his resentencing on a Penal Code section 1172.6 petition.1 The sole issue raised on appeal is that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss at least one of defendant’s section 12022.53, subdivision (b), firearm enhancements under section 1385. Defendant argues that the trial court had a mandatory duty to dismiss the firearm enhancements because section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(B) and (C) state that enhancements “shall be dismissed” when multiple enhancements are

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

1

alleged in a single case or when applying an enhancement could result in a sentence greater than 20 years. Finding no error, we affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of numerous crimes, including first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), first degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (a)), and two counts of kidnapping to commit robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of the robbery and kidnappings (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered a strike prior within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, 1170.12). The court sentenced defendant to a total aggregate term of 123 years and four months to life. On direct appeal, we modified the judgment to stay the sentence on the robbery conviction under section 654, affirmed the remainder of the judgment, and remanded for resentencing. (People v. Mayes (July 7, 2015, C073853) [nonpub. opn.].)2 In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. (Mayes I, supra, C090622.) The trial court summarily denied the petition. (Ibid.) Defendant appealed and we reversed and remanded with directions to appoint counsel and conduct further proceedings in accordance with section 1172.6. (Ibid.) On remand, the trial court appointed counsel, held a hearing, and denied the petition. (Mayes II, supra, C097314.) On appeal, we reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the murder conviction and resentence defendant on the remaining counts. (Ibid.)