People v. Holford CA3

Filed 6/25/25 P. v. Holford CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101338

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 08F0377, 13F01360 ) v.

CURTIS DEE HOLFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2009, a jury convicted defendant Curtis Dee Holford of possession of child pornography (the 2009 case). The trial court sentenced him to 14 years in state prison, including two years for prior prison term enhancements. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)1 In 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of oral copulation of a child 10 years of age or younger and a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (the 2014

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

case). The trial court also found true two prior prison term enhancements. Defendant completed his sentence for the 2009 case in 2019. In 2023, the trial court recalled and resentenced defendant in the 2014 case pursuant to section 1172.75. Defendant appeals from the resentencing order claiming the trial court erred by failing to resentence him in both the 2009 and 2014 cases. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2009, a jury convicted defendant of possession of child pornography (§ 311.11). (People v. Holford (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 155, 158.) The trial court found defendant previously had been convicted of a strike offense within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and that defendant had served two prior prison terms (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b)). (Holford, at pp. 158-159.) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 14 years in state prison (including two consecutive one-year terms for the prior prison term enhancements). (Id. at p. 159.) In 2012, this court affirmed the judgment. (Id. at p. 187.) In 2014, while defendant was in prison serving his sentence in the 2009 case, a jury convicted him of oral copulation of a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)), and a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 30 years to life plus a determinate term of 23 years. The determinate term included two 1-year prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed the sentence in the 2014 case consecutive to the sentence in the 2009 case. We affirmed the judgment in the 2014 case. (People v. Holford (Mar. 28, 2017, C077492) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the trial court defendant was eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 in the 2014 case. The People conceded defendant was eligible for resentencing in the 2014 case because the trial court imposed two prior prison term enhancements. Defendant claimed he was