People v. Blancas-Morales CA5

Filed 1/6/25 P. v. Blancas-Morales 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F087139 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CR-02473C) v.

ROBERTO BLANCAS-MORALES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Steven K. Slocum, Judge. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, John W. Powell and Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION In October 2018, defendant Roberto Blancas-Morales pleaded no contest to two counts in a complaint that had been amended to attempted murder and, as to the first count, admitted that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and, as to the second count, admitted that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 32 years and eight months in prison. In June 2023, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6. The superior court dismissed the petition at the prima facie stage, without an evidentiary hearing, after it accepted the prosecutor’s argument that defendant did not qualify for relief because, while defendant agreed to plead no contest to the amended attempted murder charges, the original complaint upon which defendant would have proceeded to trial did not include charges of attempted murder and, therefore, defendant did not accept “a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which [he] could have been convicted of murder or attempted murder” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(2)). Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to consider the amended complaint when it determined he was ineligible for resentencing relief, and the People concede that the trial court erred. We accept the People’s concession and reverse. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY2 The District Attorney of Merced County filed a complaint on May 12, 2017, charging defendant and several other individuals with various offenses and enhancements including, as to defendant, unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29815, subd. (a); count 2), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 3), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§§ 245,