People v. Long CA5

Filed 12/10/25 P. v. Long CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088792 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F13907709) v.

PHILLIP GEROME LONG, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. F. Brian Alvarez, Judge. Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Rachelle A. Newcomb, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION We previously reversed defendant Phillip Gerome Long’s judgment and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the trial court denied defendant’s request to strike his prior serious felony conviction. Defendant appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion when denying his request because it failed to apply Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c)1 when deciding whether to strike his prior serious felony conviction. We reject defendant’s argument and affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A jury convicted defendant on March 15, 2019, of oral copulation with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 1–3), lewd acts upon a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 5–8, 10–11), and possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a); count 12). As to counts 5 through 11, the jury found true the “One Strike” law allegation that defendant committed the offenses against more than one victim. (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4).) After waiving his right to a jury trial as to the allegations, defendant admitted he had a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) as to all counts.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2.

On April 26, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to total term of 396 years to life in prison, including consecutive terms of 50 years to life (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (j)(2); 667, subd. (e)(1))2 for counts 5 through 8, 10, and 11; 30 years to life as to counts 1 through 3,3 six years as to count 12,4 and various fines, fees, and assessments. Defendant appealed and argued, in part, that the trial court violated his right to due process by sentencing under the provisions of section 667.61, subdivision (j)(2) because it had not been specifically alleged in the amended information. We affirmed defendant’s judgment but, after transfer back from the California Supreme Court, reconsidered our decision in light of In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, reversed defendant’s sentence on counts 5 through 8, 10, and 11, and remanded the matter for resentencing. (People v. Long (June 24, 2024, F079251) [nonpub. opn.]). On October 11, 2024, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior serious felony conviction and sentenced him to consecutive terms of 30 years to life for counts 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 10, and 11 (§§288.7, subd. (b), 288, subd. (a), 667.61, subd. (b), 667, subd. (e)(1)) and four years as to count 12 (§§ 311.11, subd. (a), 667, subd. (e)(1)), for a total term of imprisonment of 274 years to life. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and a stayed $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)). Defendant filed this timely appeal on October 14, 2024.