People v. Zuniga CA2/2

Filed 8/14/25 P. v. Zuniga CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B337146

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA086531) v.

ANGEL ROBERT ZUNIGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

Defendant and appellant Angel Robert Zuniga was convicted of attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 215, subd. (a))1 (the 2013 conviction) and carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (§ 21310) (the 2014 conviction). The trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years six months on the 2013 conviction, with a concurrent term of four years on the 2014 conviction. Both parts of the aggregate sentence contained now-invalid enhancements for prior prison terms (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). On the 2013 conviction, all such enhancements were stayed; on the 2014 conviction, two were imposed and executed. In 2024, the trial court partially resentenced defendant pursuant to section 1172.75. However, the court denied resentencing as to the portion of defendant’s sentence arising from the 2013 conviction, finding that section 1172.75 did not apply to stayed enhancements. Our Supreme Court recently held that section 1172.75 applies to stayed enhancements. (People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054 (Rhodius).) Moreover, we agree with defendant’s position—and the People’s concession—that the trial court should have applied section 1172.75 to both terms of defendant’s aggregate sentence. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for new resentencing proceedings. BACKGROUND I. Charges, Convictions, and Aggregate Sentence On February 6, 2013, two separate informations were filed against defendant. The first charged him with attempted carjacking. (§§ 664 & 215, subd. (a).) It also alleged that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); was on bail when he committed