People v. Saucedo CA2/5

Filed 7/31/25 P. v. Saucedo CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B341581

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA051298) v.

GEORGE SAUCEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph J. Burghardt, Judge. Affirmed. Barhoma Law and Matthew Barhoma, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

George Saucedo appeals his sentence following the grant of his petition for habeas corpus. The superior court resentenced Saucedo in count 1 to a mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for special circumstance murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(21)), plus 25 years to life for an associated firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and in count 2 to a consecutive term of four years for possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). On appeal, Saucedo contends the superior court erred because it was unaware of its discretion when resentencing him. Saucedo argues that (1) following a grant of habeas corpus, the court may craft a remedy as justice requires, including reducing a mandatory LWOP sentence; (2) the court may “prevent” a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by declining to impose a mandatory LWOP sentence; and (3) recent trends indicate the Legislature intends for the courts to exercise their discretion to reduce LWOP sentences even in the absence of legislation specifically granting that discretion. We affirm the superior court’s sentencing order.