People v. Martinez CA2/8

Filed 10/8/25 P. v. Martinez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B340095

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA104573-01 v.

JUAN RAMON MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christopher W. Dybwad, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Nathan J. Hochman, District Attorney, Cassandra Thorp, Grace Shin, and Matthew Brown, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sarah S. Sanger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. ____________________

We remand for further proceedings under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) (section 1170(b)). In 2021, the prosecution and Juan Ramon Martinez agreed to a suspended prison term of five years. The basis for this term was the five-year upper term for the robbery count Martinez faced. The parties agreed the second count against Martinez would be dismissed. The prosecution says Martinez’s maximum exposure was 11 years in prison. In line with the plea agreement and Martinez’s no contest plea, the court suspended execution of sentence and placed Martinez on three years formal probation. The court warned it would sentence Martinez to five years in prison if he violated his probation. Martinez later admitted two violations in open court. Before sentencing Martinez in 2024, the court recognized a new law enacted after the plea limited the circumstances under which courts can impose the upper term. Senate Bill No. 567 (2021– 2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) enacted these revisions to section 1170(b). The court believed it was bound by this new law and noted Martinez had not stipulated to any aggravating factors. Over the prosecution’s objection, the court sentenced Martinez to the middle term of three years. The prosecution appealed. The Courts of Appeal are divided on whether Senate Bill 567’s changes apply retroactively to defendants who received the upper term under a plea agreement for a stipulated sentence. (See People v. De La Rosa Burgara (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1057, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283452 [outlining the split].) The parties note the Supreme Court has taken up the issue.