People v. Elisarraraz CA4/3

Filed 1/15/25 P. v. Elisarraraz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G062613

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20CF1018)

SERGIO ELISARRARAZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, Christopher P. Beesley and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2021, defendant Sergio Elisarraraz pleaded guilty to one count 1 of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1) , one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and one count of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3). He also admitted he committed count 1 with “willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation . . . and with the specific intent to kill” and that counts 1 and 2 were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) He further admitted two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A); 1170.12, subd. (b)) and a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a).) The court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 17 years. In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6).2 After briefing from the parties, the court issued an order to show cause in January 2023. The prosecution responded by filing a motion requesting the court reconsider the order to show cause. The court subsequently vacated the order to show cause and summarily denied defendant’s petition for resentencing. Defendant appealed. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred by denying his petition at the prima facie stage. Relying on People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, defendant argues an intent to kill finding, without more, is insufficient to establish his ineligibility for relief. For the reasons below, we agree the court erred and reverse the order.