People v. Gonzalez CA4/3

Filed 9/16/25 P. v. Gonzalez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063630

v. (Super. Ct. No. 99CF0651)

JAMES MORENO GONZALEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Joanna McKim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Heather M. Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

THE COURT:* Defendant James Moreno Gonzalez appeals a postjudgment order denying his motion for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 We reverse and remand. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1999, a jury convicted defendant of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c), 213, subd. (a)(2)) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)).2 Defendant admitted two serious felony priors that were also strikes. Of note to this appeal, defendant admitted he served a prior prison term pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).

The court sentenced defendant to state prison for 30 years to life. The court stayed punishment of the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement for the prior prison term. In case No. G027135, defendant appealed the judgment but ultimately abandoned the appeal. No appellate opinion issued. On October 13, 2023, defendant filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. On December 7, 2023, the court denied the motion for resentencing. “Having found that the Defendant in this case does appear on a list furnished by [the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] to the Court of persons potentially eligible for relief pursuant to . . . sections 1172.75 or 1172.7, this Court finds the Defendant in this case is ineligible for relief