People v. Lucia CA1/1

Filed 12/2/25 P. v. Lucia CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A169211 v. (San Francisco City and County EMMANUEL SANTA LUCIA, Super. Ct. No. CT 1219720) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Emmanuel Santa Lucia, who is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence for a murder he committed as a 25-year-old in 1990, appeals from his recent resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.2 To this end, he makes four claims: (1) that the superior court abused its discretion in allegedly failing to consider Santa Lucia’s childhood trauma and youth at the time of the offense; (2) that this alleged failure violated Santa Lucia’s due process rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466; (3) that the superior court abused its discretion and violated the Eighth Amendment to

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 We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.”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 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

the federal constitution by purportedly “[d]eferring to the [p]arole [p]rocess”; and (4) that the minute order and abstract of judgment include clerical errors that should be corrected. For the reasons given below, we reject Santa Lucia’s first three contentions but agree with his last. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment as orally pronounced and direct the superior court to correct the clerical errors. At Santa Lucia’s resentencing hearing, the trial court struck a one-year enhancement for a prior conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) under section 1172.75. Then the court struck two firearm enhancements (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) attached respectively to Count 1 (second degree murder, § 187) and Count 2 (assault with a firearm, § 245, subd. (a)(2)). For Count 1, Santa Lucia’s sentence remained 15 years to life. For Count 2, he received a two-year concurrent sentence—the low term under section 245, subdivision (a)(2). And for Count 3 (unlawful firearm possession, § 12021), the court sentenced Santa Lucia to two years concurrent, but stayed the imposition of that sentence under section 654. Where, as here, section “1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors.” (People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal. 5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3.) This entails applying “the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and . . . any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(2).) Under the resentencing procedures set forth in section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(5), the superior court is required to “consider if the defendant has experienced . . . childhood trauma,” or was younger than 26 years old “at the time of the commission of the offense.”