California Court of Appeal Aug 28, 2020 No. E073231Unpublished
Filed 8/28/20 P. v. Madrigal CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E073231
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. RIF1805263/ RIF1800017) ROBERTO MADRIGAL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Eric A. Keen, Judge.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Allison V.
Acosta, and Kristine A. Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Roberto Madrigal guilty of felony evading a peace officer, and the
trial court found he had violated his probation terms.1 The court sentenced Madrigal to
six years in prison, which included two one-year enhancements for prior prison offenses.
On appeal, Madrigal argues a change in the law requires us to strike the two prior
prison offense enhancements. The People agree. We modify the judgment and remand for
resentencing.
On October 25, 2017, police attempted to execute a search warrant when the target
and two others, including Madrigal, fled by car. When they tried to stop the car, Madrigal
fled on foot, stole a pickup truck, drove erratically on the freeway, and eventually ditched
the pickup in a riverbed. He then fled on foot into a wooded area.
On January 2, 2018, the Riverside District Attorney charged Madrigal in one case
(No. RIF1800017) with felony evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and
unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) with a prior
conviction for vehicle theft (Pen. Code, § 666.5), and alleged Madrigal had two prior
prison offenses. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) Madrigal pleaded guilty to both charges
and admitted the allegations for a sentence of four years, suspended pending successful
completion of three years’ probation.
On May 3, 2018, an officer attempted to stop Madrigal, who was driving with
expired registration tags. Madrigal didn’t stop, and instead led the police on an extended
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no substantial issue of fact or law. (California Standards of Judicial Administration, § 8.1.)
2
chase. Again, Madrigal eventually ditched the car in a riverbed and fled on foot into a
wooded area.
On December 12, 2018, the Riverside District Attorney filed a felony complaint in
a second case (No. RIF1805263) charging Madrigal with felony evading a peace officer
(Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)).
They also filed a petition seeking to have the court find, on the basis of these charges,
that Madrigal had violated his probation. They later dropped the driving without a license
charge, and added allegations that Madrigal had three prior prison offenses.
On April 18, 2019, the court found Madrigal had violated his probation. Later, in
the second case, a jury found him guilty of felony evading a peace officer and the court
found the three prison prior allegations true. The court designated the sentence for the
felony evading a peace officer conviction in the second case as the principal term. It
sentenced Madrigal to the upper term of three years for that conviction and enhanced the
sentence by two years for two of the three prison priors. The court struck the final prison
prior enhancement in the interest of justice. It designated the vehicle theft conviction in
the first case as the subordinate term and sentenced him to one year, which is one-third of
the midterm for that conviction. It found the two offenses did not arise from the same act
or omission, so Penal Code section 654 did not bar punishment for both, and imposed a
two-year concurrent term for the felony evading a peace officer conviction in that case.
This added up to a total aggregate term of six years.
3
Madrigal timely appealed from both the contested probation violation hearing and
the final judgment of conviction. He argues Senate Bill No. 136 requires all his one-year
prison prior enhancements be stricken. The People concede, and we agree.
In October 2019, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 136, which amended
Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) “Prior to this
amendment, the statute provided for a one-year enhancement for each prior separate
prison term, unless the defendant remained free from both prison custody and the
commission of a new felony for a five-year period after discharge. [Citations.] After the
amendment, ‘a one-year prior prison term enhancement will only apply if a defendant
served a prior prison term for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and