People v. McNew CA1/4

Filed 4/15/25 P. v. McNew CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170271 v. (Contra Costa County RICHARD CRAIG MCNEW, Super. Ct. No. 05000709733) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant Richard Craig McNew appeals from an order granting in part and denying in part his resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.75.2 He invites us to hold that section 1385, subdivision (c)(1), as amended in 2022, which now authorizes and in some instances requires sentencing courts to strike sentencing enhancements “in furtherance of

1 This matter is proper for disposition by a memorandum opinion in

accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. (See Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19, Abbreviated Opinions; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum opinions].) 2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

justice,” confers the same power and duty to strike prior strike convictions. We decline the invitation and affirm. I. A. In 2008, appellant was charged with special circumstances murder, forcible rape, sexual penetration, second degree robbery, and first degree burglary. The charges were accompanied by sentencing allegations that appellant had served two prior prison terms, and had suffered a prior serious and violent felony conviction as well as a prior strike conviction. By negotiated disposition, appellant pled no contest to murder and forcible sexual penetration, and guilty to first degree burglary and second degree robbery; he also admitted the burglary, robbery, and rape by instrument special circumstances allegations; and he admitted the prior prison terms, the prior serious and violent felony conviction, and the prior strike conviction. Appellant was convicted and sentenced pursuant to this negotiated plea agreement in February 2009. According to the terms of that agreement, the trial court dismissed the forcible rape count and the rape-murder special circumstance, and sentenced appellant to a total prison term of life without the possibility of parole, plus a determinate term of 22 years 8 months. His aggregate sentence was composed of the following elements: life without the possibility of parole for special circumstance murder; six years for the prior serious and violent felony under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and section 667.5, subdivision (b); plus six years for the forcible sexual penetration, doubled for the prior strike, one year four months for the burglary, doubled for the prior strike; and one year for the robbery, doubled for the prior strike. B. When appellant was sentenced in 2009, “section 667.5, subdivision (b), required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each