People v. Acosta CA2/6

Filed 6/17/25 P. v. Acosta CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B339068 (Super. Ct. No. TA143431) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

RODERICK ACOSTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Roderick Acosta appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 He contends the trial court erred when it found him ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) went into effect before he pleaded no contest to attempted murder. The Attorney General concedes the error. We agree and will reverse.

1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the

Penal Code.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant and three other members of the Florencia 13 gang—Jonathan Prado, Mauricio Landaverde, and Hector Benitez—were charged with attempted murder in connection with two gang-related shootings in Los Angeles. Appellant, Prado, and Landaverde appeared in court in September of 2019 and pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder each. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) Appellant and Prado admitted using and discharging a firearm during the commission of their offenses. Benitez did not appear at the hearing and the record is silent about the disposition on his charges. Appellant later received a negotiated term of 27 years in prison. He petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6) in May of 2022. He argued he was eligible for resentencing on the attempted murder charge under Senate Bill 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). The court found the petition facially sufficient and appointed counsel. The district attorney opposed the petition, arguing appellant was not eligible for resentencing because Senate Bill 1437 was already in effect when he entered his plea. The court set a prima facie hearing for July of 2023. The hearing was continued seven times at the request of counsel. Defense counsel eventually submitted on the district attorney’s response without filing a reply. Neither side presented oral argument when they appeared at the resentencing hearing in June of 2024. The court found appellant did not make a prima facie showing for relief and denied the petition without reaching its merits. It stated: “The change in law occurred in 2019. So when he pled to the charges in this case, the law had changed. And there’s no indication that