People v. Quevedo CA2/6

Filed 2/4/25 P. v. Quevedo CA2/6 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B335436 (Super. Ct. No. BA456662) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER FROM SUPREME COURT JONATHAN QUEVEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jonathan Quevedo appeals the judgment entered after he had been resentenced. He contends the trial court erroneously concluded that a gang-enhanced 2003 felony conviction qualifies as both (1) a “strike” within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)- (d)), and (2) a prior serious felony enhancement within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) (667(a)(1)). 1 The alleged strike and serious felony enhancement are based on section 1192.7, subd. (c)(28), which provides that a

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

“‘serious felony’” includes “any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22,” the gang statute. In 2021 section 186.22 was amended. (Stats. 2021, ch. 699, § 4, (A.B. 333).) Appellant argues that, because of this amendment, his 2003 felony conviction cannot support an increased sentence under the Three Strikes law or section 667(a)(1). In an unpublished opinion, People v. Quevedo (May 19, 2025, B335436), we held: “Appellant’s gang-enhanced felony conviction qualified as a strike on the date the conviction occurred in 2003. Therefore, it also qualified as a strike when appellant was resentenced.” (B335436, slip opn., p. 5.) We did not decide the section 667(a)(1) serious felony issue because the trial court had exercised its discretion to strike that enhancement when it resentenced appellant. The California Supreme Court granted review (S291649). On December 10, 2025, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to us “with directions to vacate [our] decision and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576 [(Fletcher)]).” We vacate our May 19, 2025 decision. Pursuant to Fletcher, we reverse the true findings that appellant’s 2003 felony conviction qualifies as a strike and a prior serious felony enhancement. In addition, we vacate appellant’s sentence. We remand the matter to the trial court with directions that the People be allowed to elect whether to retry appellant on the strike and prior serious felony enhancement. We also remand the matter for a full resentencing. (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [“when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed