People v. Huerta CA4/1

Filed 2/28/25 P. v. Huerta CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083628

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN434544)

VICENTE HUERTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with instructions. Eric R. Larson, 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, Daniel Rogers, Adrian R. Contreras and Amanda Lloyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following a confrontation with a rival gang member, Vicente Huerta shot at the rival’s departing vehicle, fatally wounding a passenger. A jury convicted him of shooting at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246; count 2)

and found true an allegation that he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death in committing the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found the allegation Huerta committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang proven true beyond a reasonable doubt (§ 186.22(b)(4)). Huerta admitted to having a strike prior and a serious felony prior. The trial court sentenced him under section 186.22(b)(4)(A) to a total term of 74 years to life in prison for count 2. The court reached that sum by imposing the upper term of 7 years for the base count plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement and 5 years for the serious felony prior, which resulted in a minimum indeterminate term of 37 years that was then doubled under the Three Strikes law. Huerta contends the trial court erred in its calculation “by including both the 25 years to life firearm enhancement and the 5-year serious prior felony enhancement within the minimum indeterminate term.” We disagree. People v. Sok (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 88 and California Supreme Court case law interpreting substantively indistinguishable provisions in the Penal Code support the trial court’s calculation of Huerta’s sentence. We therefore affirm and remand with instructions. I. A. In 1988, the Legislature enacted the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act “‘to seek the eradication of criminal activity by street gangs.’” (People v. Montes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 350, 354, quoting § 186.21.) Originally, the STEP Act prescribed sentencing enhancements for certain offenses committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, but it also provided: “Any person who violates this subdivision in the commission of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life, shall not be paroled until a