People v. Wilson CA3

Filed 11/21/25 P. v. Wilson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102173

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE018524)

v.

LENELL ROBERT WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lenell Robert Wilson was resentenced pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75. After striking defendant’s prior prison term enhancements, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a prior serious felony conviction enhancement. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying that motion. We affirm.

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, defendant entered a home and grabbed the victim’s purse from the kitchen counter. Despite the victim pleading for the return of items in the purse, defendant walked towards the garage and then immediately turned back towards the kitchen to steal a second purse. Defendant pled no contest to first degree robbery and admitted a prior strike, a prior serious felony conviction enhancement, and two prior prison term enhancements. Defendant was initially sentenced to 15 years in prison—four years, doubled to eight years, for the robbery conviction; five years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement; and two one-year terms for the prior prison term enhancements. Defendant’s prior strike and prior serious felony conviction enhancement were based on the same 2008 conviction for first degree burglary. In that case, defendant entered the victim’s garage and, in an attempt to steal the victim’s purse, defendant punched the victim in the face. Defendant’s criminal history also includes a conviction for evading a police officer in 2003, receiving stolen property in 2009, and unauthorized possession of controlled substances in custody in 2013. At defendant’s section 1172.75 resentencing hearing in 2024, the trial court reviewed the parties’ resentencing memoranda and supplemental materials. The parties and the court agreed defendant’s prior prison term enhancements must be stricken. Defendant also requested the court dismiss the prior strike and the prior serious felony conviction enhancement. The trial court did not believe defendant’s case fell “outside the spirit of the three strikes law,” due to defendant’s history of theft-related crimes and continued violations of law. “[I]n terms of the [prior serious felony conviction enhancement], the court recognize[d] that the enhancement was imposed for a conviction that . . . was more than five years old.” The trial court gave this fact great weight, but tentatively found “dismissal of this enhancement would endanger public safety.” In response to the trial court’s tentative ruling, the defense argued, “The time frame to look