California Court of Appeal Jun 13, 2025 No. E083148Unpublished
Filed 6/13/25 P. v. Raya CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083148
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF096795)
DANIEL ANTHONY RAYA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez,
Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Benjamin Kington, 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, Melissa Mandel and Tami
Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
At a hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75,1 the court denied defendant
and appellant Daniel Anthony Raya’s request for a full resentencing hearing. On appeal,
defendant contends this court should reverse the order and remand the matter to the trial
at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246, count 4); and two counts of actively participating in a
criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a), counts 5 & 6). The jury found true allegations
that defendant committed counts 1 through 4 for the benefit of a criminal street gang
(§ 186.22, subd. (b)), that defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm
in count 3 (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and that defendant had personally and intentionally
discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury in counts 3 and 4 (§ 12022.53, subds. (d)
& (e)). (People v. Raya (Feb. 14, 2007, E039923) [nonpub. opn.] (Raya).)
Defendant admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (c) &
(e)(1)) and prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to an
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
aggregate term of 110 years to life, plus six years four months in prison.2 (Raya, supra,
E039923.)
Defendant appealed. By opinion filed February 14, 2007, this court affirmed the
judgment but remanded the matter for resentencing.3 (Raya, supra, E039923.) On
remand, the court resentenced defendant to 81 years four months plus life.4
At a hearing on December 11, 2023, defense counsel noted, “In this case
[defendant] had two prison priors added to an amended abstract in 2007, and the
[California Department of Corrections (CDCR)] just sent a letter in June indicating that
the prison priors had never been on an abstract and didn’t appear in the minutes.”5
2 The original sentencing court did not address the prior prison term enhancement at all. Thus, the reporter’s transcript, minute order, and abstract of judgment from the sentencing hearing all lack any reference to the prior prison term enhancement.
3 This court’s opinion, likewise, made no mention of a prior prison term enhancement. (Raya, supra, E039923.)
4 The resentencing minute order reflects that the court imposed a sentence of 81 years four months plus life. Like the original sentencing minute order, it does not reflect any acknowledgment of a prior prison term enhancement. The resentencing abstract of judgment, on the other hand, reflects that the court resentenced defendant to 83 years four months, including a consecutive year on each of two prior prison term enhancements. However, the People neither charged, nor did defendant admit, that he had suffered two prior prison terms. There is no reporter’s transcript of the resentencing hearing in the record to explain the conflict.
5 “[S]ection 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition. Rather the process is triggered by the [CDCR] identifying a defendant as a person serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. [Citation.]” (People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332; accord, People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268; accord, People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382.)
3
The People responded, “I didn’t have any priors showing on the minutes or on the
abstract when I initially prepped this case . . . .” Defense counsel replied, “There’s two
prison priors that show on the amended abstract. There was only one prison prior
charged in the case.” “I guess my position is that as of today he is still serving a prison
term on those prison priors because that’s what CDCR has had since 2007. So for the
better of over 15 years he has been serving on the prison priors that never got caught that
they were probably incorrect.”
The People opined, “I think what needs to happen in this case is the abstract, as the
CDCR mentioned, needs to be corrected to reflect that there were never any [section]
667.5[, subdivision ](b) priors imposed.” “Neither in the minutes nor in the remittitur
was a [section] 667.5[, subdivision ](b) [enhancement] ever referenced, and so this was
just an administrative error that those priors are appearing on the abstract.”
In a discussion between the court and defense counsel, defense counsel confirmed
that defendant had been charged with a single prior prison term, that the original abstract
did not reflect any prior prison terms, and that the amended abstract in 2007 reflected two
prior prison terms. Defense counsel was unable to find anything in the trial record to
reflect whether defendant admitted the prior prison term, whether it was ever found true,
or whether it was ever found not true.
The People again posited, “there were never any [section] 667.5[, subdivision ](b)
priors imposed in this case. The abstract is just wrong. It needs to be corrected.”
Defense counsel responded, “I believe, though, this is an error that should entitle this
4
person to a full resentencing because they have been serving under two [section] 667[.5,
subdivision ](b) prison priors since 2007.”
The court agreed with the People, “especially since it went through the Court of
Appeals and that they didn’t indicate they noticed any prison priors. So I will correct the
abstract of judgment to indicate there never were any prison priors.” “I think that since
I’m agreeing that the abstract of judgment was incorrect, there is no [section] 667.5[,
subdivision ](b) [enhancement]. Since one doesn’t exist, there is no resentencing.” The
court corrected the abstract of judgment to reflect no section 667.5, subdivision (b)
enhancements.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends this court should reverse and remand the matter with
directions to the trial court to hold a full resentencing hearing. Defendant maintains that
despite the procedural irregularities, the People alleged, and defendant admitted a prior
prison term enhancement. Since that enhancement was purportedly, eventually included
on an abstract of judgment, albeit as one of two in 2007, defendant asserts he was serving
a sentence that included a prior prison term enhancement, which should allow him a full
resentencing hearing.
The People argue that the appearance of the enhancements on the 2007 minute
order were the result of clerical error, such that defendant was not entitled to a full
resentencing hearing. We agree with the People.
5
Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) added section 1171.1 to the Penal
Code (Stats. 2021, ch. 728), which the Legislature subsequently renumbered, without
substantive change, as section 1172.75 (Stats 2022, ch. 58, § 12, eff. June 30, 2022).
[Defendant not entitled to resentencing where the trial court stayed the enhancement, but
the appellate court modified the judgment on direct appeal to strike the prior prison
term].)
6
“An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if
different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment
it purports to digest or summarize. [Citation.].” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th
181, 185; accord, People v. Pantaleon (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 932, 941.) “Of course, ‘the
defendant . . . bears the burden to provide a record on appeal which affirmatively shows
that there was error below, and any uncertainty in the record must be resolved against the
defendant.’ [Citation.] [Where] appellant has failed to provide an adequate record for
review, his claim fails. [Citation.]” (People v. Moore (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 856, 866.)
Here, the record fails to disclose the intent of either the sentencing or resentencing
court regarding the prior prison term, which defendant admitted. It could be that the
original sentencing court intended to strike the enhancement, which is why it does not
appear on the original abstract or minute order. Any uncertainty in the record must be
resolved against defendant. (People v. Moore, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 866.)
Likewise, the discrepancy between the resentencing minute order and resentencing
abstract appears to reflect a clerical error in the preparation of that abstract. Indeed,
defense counsel, the People, and the court below all believed the resentencing abstract
was the result of clerical error. At minimum, the clerk preparing the abstract erred in
indicating that there were two prior prison term enhancements. Again, any uncertainty
must be resolved against defendant. (People v. Moore, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 866.)
Therefore, the resentencing abstract’s apparent failure to accurately reflect the
resentencing court’s intent must be construed as the result of clerical error; thus, it does
7
not control. Here, where the record fails to affirmatively show the court below erred in
determining that prior prison terms merely appeared on the resentencing abstract because
of clerical error, the record must be resolved against defendant and his appellate claim
fails. Therefore, the court properly declined to grant defendant a full resentencing
hearing because no time on the prior prison term enhancements had ever been imposed.
III. DISPOSITION
The court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J.
MENETREZ J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 because the prior prison term enhancements appearing on his abstract of judgment were the result of clerical error and were never actually imposed by the sentencing court.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the defendant's abstract of judgment contained prior prison term enhancements that were not part of the court's oral judgment.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the court properly declined to grant defendant a full resentencing hearing because no time on the prior prison term enhancements had ever been imposed.”
“An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.”