People v. Soliz CA5

Filed 8/31/20 P. v. Soliz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F079829 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RF008205A) v.

DYLAN CHASE SOLIZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jason W. Webster, Commissioner. Lindsay Sweet, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Jennifer Oleksa, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Dylan Chase Soliz contends on appeal that the two one-year prior prison term enhancements, imposed based on his prior felony convictions for burglary and unlawful taking or driving of a stolen vehicle, should be stricken pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b),1 amended by Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136). The People concede the enhancements should be stricken. We accept the People’s concession, strike the prior prison term enhancements, and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing. In all other respects, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On April 23, 2019,2 the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1), battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2), and two counts of violating a protective order (§ 273.6, subd. (a); counts 3 & 4). The complaint alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7). The complaint further alleged that defendant had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On May 7, defendant pled no contest to counts 1, 3, and 4, and admitted the truth of the great bodily injury enhancement allegation in exchange for dismissal of count 2 and an agreed term of imprisonment of three years if he complied with the terms of the agreement, or nine years if he failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. As a term of defendant’s plea agreement, he was released on his own recognizance and agreed to comply with the terms of release, including that he would appear at all times and places ordered by the court and obey all laws. On July 25, based on defendant’s admission, the trial court found that defendant violated the terms of the agreement on July 2 by committing an offense while released on his own recognizance. The court followed the recommendation of the probation officer