People v. Baul CA2/2

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Baul CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B344981

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA063524) v.

JOEL BAUL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Neetu S. Badhan-Smith, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Chelsea Zaragoza, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Joel Baul (defendant) appeals from the denial of resentencing relief pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75. Defendant contends, and the People agree, the resentencing court erroneously relied on a previously stricken enhancement for a sexually violent offense, as well as an unalleged prior conviction for a sexually violent offense in finding defendant ineligible for resentencing. The record establishes error. We therefore reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND2 In 2009, the People charged defendant with carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 2 & 5), assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220, subd. (a); count 3), and second degree robbery (§ 211; count 4). The People also alleged defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon during the commission of counts 1 and 4 (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). It was further alleged defendant served three prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b) and suffered two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Finally, it was alleged defendant suffered two prior strike convictions pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667, subds. (b)–(i)). Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged, with the exception being he was convicted of attempted robbery