People v. Madera CA6

Filed 12/11/14 P. v. Madera CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H040922 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1245427)

v.

LAWRENCE MADERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court was authorized to impose a prison 1 prior enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (a)) in addition to a prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)) based on a single prior case in which there had been two convictions. We conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the trial court erred in imposing the prison prior enhancement.

I. Background Defendant Lawrence Madera was charged by felony complaint with second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and it was alleged that he had personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of the robbery (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

complaint further alleged that defendant previously had been convicted in Guam of two counts of “First Degree Sexual Conduct,” the second of which was identified as “(Second Count),” in case No. “GM1055J” and that each of these two convictions qualified as a 2 strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In addition, the complaint alleged a single section 667, subdivision (a) prior serious felony conviction based on a Guam “First Degree Sexual Conduct” conviction with the same case number without specification of which count. Finally, the complaint alleged a single section 667.5, subdivision (a) prison prior based on a Guam “First Degree Sexual Conduct” conviction with the same case number, again without specification of which count formed the basis for the allegation. Defendant pleaded guilty to the robbery count, admitted the weapon allegation, and admitted the strike allegations, the serious felony allegation, and the prison prior allegation. When the court asked defendant if he admitted the serious felony and prison prior allegations, the court explicitly premised its inquiry by stating that the two allegations were “for the same conduct.” The Guam prior convictions underlying these allegations were based on a single incident during which defendant sexually assaulted two women. He received an eight-year prison term for the Guam convictions in 2004 and was released on parole in 2010. The court declined defendant’s request that it strike the strikes. It imposed a 25 years to life term for the robbery count and stayed the punishment for the deadly weapon enhancement. With respect to the serious felony and prison prior enhancements, the prosecutor’s position, with which the probation officer concurred, was that “People v. Jones does not apply” because “each count involved separate victims.” The trial court imposed a five-year consecutive term for the section 667, subdivision (a) serious felony