People v. Edwards CA2/5

Filed 6/12/25 P. v. Edwards CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B335150

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. NA071546)

ANTHONY MONQUALLI EDWARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2007, a jury found defendant and appellant Anthony Edwards (defendant) guilty of robbery, forgery, and burglary; the trial court found true several associated sentencing enhancements, including a one-year prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code,1 § 667.5, subd. (b)) and three five-year prior serious felony conviction enhancements (§ 667, subd. (b)). More recently, the trial court struck the prior prison term enhancement pursuant to section 1172.75 and, in holding the full resentencing that statute requires when doing so, declined to strike the other aforementioned enhancements it previously imposed. Defendant asks us to decide this was error for a reason he did not raise in the trial court, namely, because the trial court purportedly misunderstood the law when assessing whether to dismiss the prior serious felony conviction enhancements.

I. BACKGROUND In 2007, defendant was charged with one count of second degree robbery against Maria Viteri (Viteri) (count 1), one count of forgery for forging a check from Viteri’s Washington Mutual account (count 2), and one count of second degree commercial burglary for entering a Washington Mutual Bank with the intent to commit larceny (count 3). The information also included multiple sentencing allegations, including several prior “strike” convictions under the Three Strikes law. After trial, a jury found defendant guilty on all three charged counts. The trial court found prior conviction sentencing allegations true, including the aforementioned three prior serious