People v. Lauria CA2/8

Filed 7/15/25 P. v. Lauria CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B341303

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA105395-01) v.

ERIC THOMAS LAURIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard M. Goul, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), we review an order denying Eric Thomas Lauria’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1). Because we find the order is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND On April 18, 2017, the People charged appellant Eric Thomas Lauria with arson of an inhabited structure in violation of section 451, subdivision (b). The People also alleged as enhancements two prior strike convictions, serious felonies, and prior prison terms. Lauria pled no contest to the arson charge and admitted one prior serious felony conviction in exchange for a 15-year sentence and dismissal of the remaining enhancements. The trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, consisting of the five-year midterm for the arson, doubled to 10 years because of the strike, plus five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. On August 12, 2024, Lauria filed a motion requesting modification of sentence pursuant to section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1). He asked the trial court to dismiss the five- year enhancement based on ameliorative legislative changes that permitted a trial court to recall and modify a sentence in the interests of justice. The trial court exercised its discretion to decline to reduce petitioner’s sentence and denied the motion, stating, “The court has read and considered petitioner’s invitation and motion to resentence pursuant to [Assembly Bill No.] 1618, [Senate Bill No.] 1393, Penal Code [sections] 1172.1, 1170, 1170.1