People v. Carrillo CA4/1

Filed 3/5/26 P. v. Carrillo CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085324

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB039094)

JOE CARRILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Donna G. Garza, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed and remanded with instructions. Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Maxine Hart, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Joe Carrillo appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing. He contends, and the People concede, he was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole and is therefore eligible to seek resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1). Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851–854), we accept the People’s concession and reverse and remand for further proceedings on the resentencing petition. I. A jury convicted Carrillo of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245(a)(1); count 1) and four counts of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187(a); counts 2–5) and found true various enhancements for each count. Carrillo committed those crimes when he was 17 years old. In 2005, the trial court originally sentenced Carrillo to prison for a determinate term of nine years followed by an indeterminate sentence of 160 years to life. On direct appeal, we struck the enhancement associated with count 1, which resulted in a reduced sentence of four years determinate plus an indeterminate term of 160 years to life. (People v. Carrillo (May 4, 2007, D049607) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2024, Carrillo filed a petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1). The trial court denied the petition on the grounds Carrillo was not sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP because of his youth offender parole eligibility under section 3051. II. Carrillo contends he is eligible for relief under section 1170(d)(1) on equal protection grounds because his sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP despite section 3051. The People concede error.