People v. Tuggle CA5

Filed 1/2/26 P. v. Tuggle 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089107 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRM025784) v.

ROBERT ANTHONY TUGGLE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Jennifer O. Trimble, Judge. William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary, and Jesica Gonzalez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., DeSantos, J. and Guerra, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Robert Anthony Tuggle contends on this appeal that the trial court erroneously found he was not entitled to a Franklin1 hearing in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and erred in denying his Franklin motion as successive. The People agree with defendant that the court erred when it denied his motion as successive. We conclude the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing as successive. We reverse the court’s order and remand for the court to consider defendant’s motion under Penal Code2 section 1203.01 and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook). PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In 2014, defendant accepted a plea agreement and pled no contest to assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count 3), admitting he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)). All other charges and enhancements were dismissed. The trial court imposed a total term of 17 years in state prison, per the agreement, consisting of a nine-year term for the assault conviction, a three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement, and a five-year term for the gang enhancement. In 2017, the trial court held a hearing in response to a letter from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation seeking clarification of defendant’s sentence. The court found that defendant’s 17-year sentence from the plea agreement was obtained in an illegal manner by imposing the wrong gang enhancement. The court agreed that it had imposed the wrong gang enhancement. The court resentenced defendant by amending count 3 to assault with a deadly weapon under section 245, subdivision (a)(1) and imposed the 17-year term as four years for the assault conviction, three years for the great