People v. Myers CA3

Filed 2/10/26 P. v. Myers CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Siskiyou) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102455

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCCR-CRF- 2022-1393) v.

RONALD LEE MYERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Ronald Lee Myers guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 60 years to life in prison pursuant to both the “habitual offender” provisions in Penal Code section 667.71 and California’s “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The court also imposed a consecutive 13-year determinate term for three sentence enhancements. On appeal, Myers contends the trial court was not authorized to impose enhancements in addition to the habitual offender sentence. The People agree, though for

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

different reasons. We agree with the People’s reasoning and will modify the judgment to strike the unauthorized sentence enhancements. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The jury found Myers guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and found true allegations that he: (1) inflicted great bodily injury under section 12022.7, subdivision(a); (2) used a dangerous or deadly weapon within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23) and (31); and (3) used force likely to produce great bodily injury, within the meaning of section 677.7, subdivision (a). Myers waived his right to a jury trial on prior conviction and aggravating circumstance allegations. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that: (1) Myers had four prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon; (2) those four convictions were “strikes” under the Three Strikes law; (3) Myers was a habitual offender under section 667.7; and (4) the aggravating circumstance allegations were true. The presentence report prepared by the probation department recommended sentencing Myers to an indeterminate term of 20 years to life in prison, tripled to 60 years under the Three Strikes law. The report also recommended sentencing Myers to a consecutive determinate term of 13 years in prison for three enhancements: a great bodily injury enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a) and two prior serious felony enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court followed the department’s recommendation, sentencing Myers to 60 years to life in prison for assault plus 13 years for the enhancements. Myers filed a timely notice appealing from the judgment. DISCUSSION Myers contends the trial court was not authorized to impose enhancements in addition to the habitual offender sentence because section 667, subdivision (a)(2) required dismissal of the enhancements and because the enhancements are unattached to a determinate sentence for a crime. The People agree the enhancements are unauthorized