People v. Minassian CA3

Filed 3/13/25 P. v. Minassian CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C100361

v. (Super. Ct. No. CM016041)

DENNIS ALLEN MINASSIAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dennis Allen Minassian appeals from an order striking his prior prison term enhancements under Penal Code section 1172.75.1 Appointed counsel asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436), and advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. Although defendant did not independently file a supplemental brief, in reviewing the record, this court identified a possible trial court error that might not inure to defendant’s benefit but might have resulted in an unauthorized sentence. We requested supplemental briefing,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

asking the parties whether the trial court erred in striking the prior prison term enhancements, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The parties submitted supplemental briefs. Having reviewed the record and the supplemental briefs, we have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, but we conclude the trial court erred in striking the prior prison term enhancements, resulting in an unauthorized sentence. We will reverse the order striking those enhancements and direct the trial court to reinstate the original sentence. BACKGROUND In 2003, defendant was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (§ 288.5, subd. (a)), lewd and lascivious conduct with a child aged 14 or 15 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)), and failure to register as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (f)(1)). The trial court found true allegations that defendant had two prior strike convictions for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) in 1987 and 1992. The trial court also found true allegations that defendant had two prior prison terms for those strike offenses. (Former § 667.5, subd. (b).) In 2004, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 210 years to life. The sentence included one year for each of defendant’s prior prison terms under former section 667.5, subdivision (b). Almost 20 years later, in 2022, the trial court received notice from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that defendant may be eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. Defendant filed a petition and brief in support of resentencing, arguing he was not disqualified from relief because his prior conviction was not for a sexually violent offense. The People agreed defendant’s prior prison term enhancements should be stricken but opposed a full resentencing because the enhancements were imposed but stayed.