People v. Lee CA2/8

Filed 6/10/25 P. v. Lee CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B335183

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA092659 v.

JESSIE LEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard Goul, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon and Jennifer Peabody, 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, Nicholas J. Webster and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Jessie Lee challenges the trial court’s decision not to strike sentencing enhancements totaling 20 years. We affirm because Lee did not demonstrate any abuse of discretion. Code citations are to the Penal Code. In 2013, Lee agreed to a sentence of 47 years and four months. He pleaded guilty to six counts of robbery (§ 211), covering five separate incidents over four days in June 2012. Lee also pleaded no contest to one count of dissuading a witness from testifying (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1)). He admitted a personal use firearm allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); one “strike” under the Three Strikes Law (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); § 667, subds. (b)-(i)); two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and six prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court dismissed one strike in line with the parties’ agreement. Resentencing became available to Lee roughly a decade later after the Legislature largely invalidated one-year prison prior enhancements. (See People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 397, 399.) Lee filed a motion outlining why the trial court not only should strike his prison priors but also should exercise its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the 10-year firearm enhancement and the two five-year serious felony conviction enhancements. Lee underscored his stellar prison record, his rehabilitation over the past decade, his age and decreased mobility, and his difficult childhood. The prosecution agreed the court should strike the prison priors but opposed further relief. The opposition focused on Lee’s extensive criminal history and his many acts of violence during the 2012 series of robberies. The court considered both sides’ papers and invited argument at the August 2023 resentencing hearing. It noted Lee