People v. Tamariz CA2/2

Filed 4/15/25 P. v. Tamariz CA2/2 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B315223

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA088067) v.

URIEL TAMARIZ, OPINION ON REMAND

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Alan K. Schneider, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

Nicholas Seymour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

This case is before us on remand from the California Supreme Court. Pursuant to the Court’s instructions, we have vacated our previous opinion in this case and reconsidered the cause in light of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch). Defendant and appellant Uriel Tamariz appeals from his convictions for, among other things, second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; counts 1 & 3).1 On the principal term (count 3), the trial court sentenced defendant to the high term on the basis of several aggravating factors, including that defendant had “planne[d]” one of the two robberies. Subsequently, the Legislature amended section 1170, subdivision (b), limiting the trial court’s discretion to impose high term sentences. The Lynch court later held that these amendments require a jury to find true “all facts actually relied on to impose an upper term,” except for a prior conviction. (Lynch, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 757.) Because we cannot conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a jury would have found that defendant planned one of the robberies, we must reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance with section 1170, subdivision (b). FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 16, 2018, defendant robbed and shot Eduardo Zamora. The following day, he robbed Jose Lopez (Lopez). With respect to the latter robbery, Lopez testified that one week earlier, he saw defendant, who lived nearby, loitering in the parking lot adjacent to Lopez’s home. When Lopez asked defendant what he was doing there, defendant accused Lopez’s