People v. Carbajal CA1/1

Filed 9/19/25 P. v. Carbajal CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172447 v. ALBERTO HERNANDEZ (Del Norte County CARBAJAL, Super. Ct. No. CR-PB-19-5041) Defendant and Appellant.

I. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 While serving a life sentence for murder, Alberto Hernandez Carbajal participated in a riot that severely injured several correctional officers. A jury convicted him of 16 counts of assault by a prisoner. (Pen. Code, §§ 4500, 4501, subd. (b).)2 In Carbajal’s first appeal, we reversed as to eight counts and remanded for resentencing. (People v. Carbajal (Dec. 6, 2021, A161025) [nonpub. opn.].) In two subsequent appeals, we again remanded for resentencing based on prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel at the first

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud.

Admin., § 8.1.) We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

resentencing hearing (People v. Carbajal (Mar. 29, 2023, A165143 [nonpub. opn.]) and sentencing errors at the second resentencing hearing (People v. Carbajal (May 31, 2024, A168441 [nonpub. opn.]).3 Most recently, the trial court resentenced Carbajal to a total of 26 years to life in state prison: nine years to life, doubled to 18 years to life under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)),4 for his remaining conviction under section 4500, plus a consecutive, middle term of four years, doubled to eight under the Three Strikes law, for one of seven convictions under section 4501, subdivision (b). The court stayed the sentences for the remaining convictions pursuant to section 654. Carbajal raises two claims of error in this appeal, both of which concern his request for relief from Three Strikes sentencing pursuant to section 1385. We review the court’s ruling under that section for abuse of discretion, applying a “strong presumption” that a Three Strikes sentence is “both rational and proper.” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375, 378 (Carmony).) Only in “an extraordinary case—where the relevant factors . . . manifestly support” relief “and no reasonable minds could differ”—would we find an abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 378.) We likewise review the court’s other “[d]iscretionary sentencing decisions” for abuse of discretion, including its weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors in selecting a sentence. (People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 428, fn. 8.) The burden is on the