People v. Miranda CA4/3

Filed 1/10/25 P. v. Miranda 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063635

v. (Super. Ct. No. 99CF0899)

EDWARD MIRANDA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Richard Schwartzberg, 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,

Christopher P. Beesley and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * * THE COURT: Defendant Edward Miranda appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to recall his sentence and resentence him, pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 Defendant argues he is entitled to be resentenced on his now invalid section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term enhancements. The Attorney General argues defendant is not entitled to resentencing because the trial court struck the section 667.5 enhancements. We agree with defendant and reverse and remand for resentencing. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1999, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of indecent exposure (§ 314.1). The trial court found true prior strike (§ 667, subds. (c), (e)) and prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) allegations. The court imposed and stayed the terms for the section 667, subdivision (b) enhancements. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life plus an additional 1 year 4 months. On appeal, the court concluded the trial court erred in staying the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Upon remand, the court exercised its discretion pursuant to section 1385 and struck the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements for purposes of sentencing, leaving the rest of defendant’s sentence unchanged.