People v. Jaimes CA5

Filed 4/24/15 P. v. Jaimes CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F068161 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11CM7119) v.

JUAN JAIMES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S. Burns, Judge. John Hardesty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and John G. McLean, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION On February 5, 2013, a second amended information was filed against codefendants Julio Perez, Ramon Reyes, and Juan Jaimes.1 The defendants were charged with attempting to deter three different correctional officers. Three counts of attempting to deter an executive officer were alleged as to each officer. (Pen. Code, § 69, subd. (a); counts 1 [Officer Rocha], 2 [Officer Ramirez], & 3 [Officer Garcia].)2 The information alleged one count of battery of a correctional officer (§ 4501.5, count 4 [Officer Ramirez]). The information alleged that Jaimes had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)- (d)). The jury acquitted all three defendants of count 4, found them guilty of counts 1 and 2, and found them guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) in count 3. The jury found the strike allegations against Jaimes to be true. At the sentencing hearing, on May 22, 2013, the trial court took the matter of Jaimes’s request to strike one of the prior serious felony allegations, pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, under submission and sentencing was continued. On August 21, 2013, the trial court denied Jaimes’s request to strike one of the prior serious felony convictions, rejecting Jaimes’s argument that because both prior convictions were based on the same criminal act and involved a single victim, both counts could not be used as separate strike allegations. Instead of having a single prior serious felony conviction, the trial court found Jaimes had two prior serious felony convictions.