People v. Garcia CA4/3

Filed 5/29/25 P. v. Garcia CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063406

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13WF0628)

CHUNCEY TARAE GARCIA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed. Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Sharon

L. Rhodes and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Chuncey Tarae Garcia was convicted of human trafficking of a minor and pimping a minor under the age of 16. Garcia admitted two prior prison allegations. The trial court sentenced Garcia to 15 years to life for the human trafficking conviction, one year for each of the two prison priors, and imposed but stayed the sentence for the pimping conviction. Garcia later applied for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75, which invalidated most prison priors. Garcia also requested the trial court stay the longer sentence for the human trafficking conviction, pursuant to section 654, which had been amended since Garcia’s conviction to allow the sentencing court discretion to determine which of several sentences to impose. The court dismissed the two prison priors but declined Garcia’s request to stay the human trafficking conviction. On appeal, Garcia contends the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to properly consider his postconviction rehabilitation. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the postjudgment order. FACTS A jury convicted Garcia of human trafficking of a minor (§ 236.1, subd. (c)(2); count 1) and pimping a minor under the age of 16 (§ 266h, subd. (b)(2); count 2). The jury found true the allegation that the human trafficking was committed by force or fear (§ 236.1, subd. (c)(2)). Garcia admitted two