People v. Gonzalez CA2/6

Filed 7/14/25 P. v. Gonzalez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B337531 (Super. Ct. No. LA080066) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANDRES GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Andres Gonzalez appeals from the sentence imposed after our order to show cause returnable to the superior court remanded the matter for resentencing. He contends the trial court erred when it declined to consider whether a gang enhancement should be stricken based on recently-enacted amendments to Penal Code section 186.22, the gang enhancement statue.1 He further contends the resulting abstract of judgment erroneously imposes a court security fee that the

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated.

trial court orally ordered stayed. Respondent correctly concedes both contentions. We remand the matter for resentencing in light of the amended section 186.22 and for correction of the abstract of judgment. Facts and Procedural History In 2016, appellant was convicted, by jury, of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246) and assault with a firearm. (§ 245, subd. (a)(2).) The jury further found true a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1)(B), (b)(4)), and an enhancement for personal use of a firearm. (§ 12022.5.) The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term in state prison of 25 years to life, including three years for the firearm enhancement and five years for the gang enhancement. After we affirmed his conviction on appeal and the trial court denied two petitions for writ of habeas corpus, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. He contended that he was entitled to resentencing because the firearm use enhancement and the gang enhancement were based on the same instance of using a firearm and simultaneous imposition of these enhancements violated section 1170.1, subdivision (f).2 (People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 508- 509; People v. Francis (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 876, 881-882.) Respondent agreed and conceded that the trial court would then have discretion to reconsider all of its sentencing options, including its discretion to strike the firearm enhancement. (See,