People v. Donahue CA3

Filed 11/26/25 P. v. Donahue CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C100859

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 94F06251)

v.

TROY DONAHUE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Troy Donahue1 filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asking this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Our review of the record revealed that the abstract of judgment

1 The prosecution amended the information to include the full name of the defendant, “Lorenzo Troy Donahue.” The abstract of judgment and notice of appeal list defendant’s name as “Troy Donahue.” We use the latter name in this opinion.

1

erroneously lists fines and fees that were waived or not imposed by the trial court and includes restitution not ordered by the court. We order the trial court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1994, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of robbery. The trial court subsequently found that defendant had previously been convicted of two serious felonies and served a term in prison for a third prior felony conviction. The court sentenced defendant to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison for the two robberies under California’s “Three Strikes” law, plus two consecutive five-year terms for the two prior serious felony convictions under Penal Code2 section 667, subdivision (a), for an aggregate sentence of 60 years to life in prison. The court imposed but stayed a one-year prior prison term enhancement under former section 667.5, subdivision (b). In 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified defendant as eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75, so the trial court initiated the resentencing process. (§ 1172.75, added by Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3; see also Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12 [renumbering section without substantive change].) Defendant asked the trial court to strike his prior serious felony convictions as to both of his robbery convictions, dismiss all three enhancements, and sentence him to a determinate sentence of five years in prison. Alternatively, defendant asked the court to strike one of his prior serious felony convictions as to each robbery conviction and sentence him to 10 years in prison. The prosecution argued that any reduction of defendant’s sentence other than the required dismissal of the invalid one-year enhancement would endanger public safety. The trial court denied defendant’s request to strike his prior serious felony convictions as to the first robbery count and sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison