People v. Angel CA3

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 2025 No. C099049Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his claims regarding the trial court's failure to formally recall his sentence and pronounce individual components of the new sentence by failing to object below, and that such failure did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by failing to formally recall the defendant's sentence and pronounce individual components of the new sentence under Penal Code section 1172.75.
Whether the defendant's claims were forfeited by a failure to object at the resentencing hearing.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to object to the sentencing procedure.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that Angel forfeited these claims by failing to object below.”

“In the context of criminal sentencing, this forfeiture rule applies “to claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices” and claims “concerning the manner in which sentence is imposed”

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Angel CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099049

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR-FE- 1997-0005545, SC061252A) v.

GARY GENE ANGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Gary Gene Angel appeals a judgment entered following his resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 He contends that the trial court erred by failing to recall his original sentence and pronounce the individual components of his new sentence as required. We conclude that Angel forfeited these claims by failing to object below. We also reject his contention that this failure amounted to prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

BACKGROUND The People’s information charged Angel with first degree murder with a firearm use enhancement (§§ 187, 12022.5, subd. (a); count one); attempted murder with a firearm use enhancement (§§ 664, 187, 12022.5, subd. (a); count two); evading a peace officer in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count three); and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1); count four). The information also alleged that he had suffered three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and a prior strike conviction for grand theft (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subd. (d)). The jury found Angel guilty of murder with a firearm enhancement, evading a peace officer with willful or wanton disregard for safety, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. It found him not guilty of attempted murder. A bench trial on the prior conviction allegations was scheduled to take place the next day. The court’s specific findings are not part of the record on appeal. In September 1997, the trial court sentenced Angel to an aggregate prison term of 61 years four months to life comprised of: four years for count three (the middle term doubled); 16 months for count four (one-third the middle term doubled); four years for the firearm enhancement associated with count one; two one-year terms for the prior prison term enhancements; and 50 years to life for count one, the murder with a strike prior. We affirmed the judgment. (People v. Angel (Feb. 27, 2001, C027546) [nonpub. opn.].) In December 2022, the trial court issued an ex parte order noting that the court’s records indicated that Angel’s judgment included an enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020. Under what is now section 1172.75, sentence enhancements imposed prior to January 1, 2020 pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), except for enhancements imposed for sexually violent offenses, are “legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) In April 2023, Angel filed a

People v. Angel CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C099049

GARY GENE ANGEL,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief