Angulo v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 5/5/15 Angulo v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

CHRISTOPHER LOUIS ANGULO, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA A144648 COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. 51300151) THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

In this mandamus proceeding, petitioner Christopher Louis Angulo seeks a writ of mandate compelling respondent superior court to vacate its order denying his petition for recall of sentence and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a),1 which was enacted as part of Proposition 47.2 Our review of the parties’ briefs and the record lead us to conclude petitioner is entitled to writ relief. Thus, in accordance with our notification to the parties we might do so, we order issuance of a writ directing respondent court to vacate its order denying petitioner’s petition for recall of sentence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171,

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 Proposition 47, passed by the voters at the November 4, 2014 general election, was intended to reduce penalties for certain nonserious and nonviolent property and drug offenses from wobblers or felonies to misdemeanors. (See People v. Davis (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1023.)

177–180; Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1239–1241.) Accordingly, the matter is remanded for respondent court to hold a hearing to determine whether the section 1170.18 petition “satisfies the criteria in subdivision (a),” and, if so, whether petitioner should nevertheless be denied relief because he “would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (§ 1170.18, subd. (b).) I. Background On November 17, 2012, May Brunckhorst was collecting the quarters from vending machines in a laundromat; she put the quarters in a plastic bag and placed it in a shopping cart next to her. Petitioner Christopher Angulo grabbed the plastic bag containing the money and ran off. The victim chased after him and caught hold of him, but let go when Angulo swung at her and missed. A group of onlookers gave chase and tackled Angulo to the ground. A passing Pleasant Hill police officer saw the chase, responded to the scene and took Angulo into custody. Subsequently, Angulo was charged with second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5(c)) with several prior conviction allegations , including a prior serious felony conviction (residential burglary), and two prior prison convictions for corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant and battery upon a police officer. At a sentencing hearing held on October 8, 2014, Angulo pleaded guilty to an amended count of grand theft “from the person of another” (§ 487(c)), admitted two prison priors, and received a half-time eligible sentence of five years imprisonment (aggravated term of 3 years on grand theft plus a consecutive one year for each of the prison priors), with 504 days actual credit plus 504 conduct credits. On November 20, 2014, Angulo filed a petition for recall of sentence and request for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (a). The court held a hearing on the petition on January 30, 2015. After entertaining argument of counsel, the court denied the petition because any relief under Proposition 47 would constitute “a windfall to the defense because the prosecution dismissed more serious charges.” The same day