People v. Dominguez CA5

Filed 4/10/25 P. v. Dominguez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087958 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF241607D) v.

JOE VALDEZ DOMINGUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda Myrle Reed, Judge. William W. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Chung Mi Choi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant Joe Valdez Dominguez pled no contest to two counts of attempted murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and 23 other offenses, and admitted various firearm enhancements, a prior conviction, prior prison term, and street gang/terrorism allegations. He petitioned the trial court, pursuant to former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) of the Penal Code,1 for resentencing on his two attempted murder convictions. The court summarily denied the petition at the prima facie stage, without appointing counsel. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition, arguing the court erred in failing to appoint counsel and in denying the petition at the prima facie stage. We agreed and reversed. (People v. Dominguez (Mar. 15, 2023, F084187) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court ordered the prosecutor to show cause why defendant’s two attempted murder convictions should not be vacated or set aside. The prosecutor moved to dismiss those convictions, and the court granted the motion. However, the court did not resentence defendant. On appeal, the parties agree that the failure to resentence defendant was error. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for full resentencing. In all other respects we affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 On December 18, 2012, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a 26-count information charging defendant with conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187; count 1), premeditated attempted murder of K.S. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 2), premeditated attempted murder of D.S. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 3), and discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246; count 4), among other offenses and special