People v. Aguilar CA5

Filed 9/10/20 P. v. Aguilar 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F077866 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F17905606) v.

JESSE AGUILAR, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kristi Culver Kapetan, Judge. Gordon B. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and De Santos, J.

Appellant Jesse Aguilar was convicted by jury of two counts of battery upon a custodial officer (Pen Code,1 § 243.1). As to one of the counts, the jury found true appellant had inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated trial, the court found true appellant had suffered four prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On appeal, appellant asserts his case must be remanded (1) with orders to the trial court that no fines or fees be imposed absent a finding that appellant has the present ability to pay them, relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas); (2) for the trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.); and (3) with instructions to strike the one-year prior prison term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b) pursuant to Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.). We strike the enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b), but otherwise affirm the judgment. FACTS Because all of appellant’s claims on appeal are related to his sentencing, we will not set forth the facts of his substantive offense for the sake of brevity, as they are not relevant to our analysis. We only set forth the pertinent facts of appellant’s sentencing and other procedural events relevant to this appeal. At appellant’s sentencing, appellant requested the court to strike his strike priors pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, as well as his prison priors on the basis that there was “no additional sentence benefit as [appellant] is already serving [a] life without the possibility of parole sentence.” Several of appellant’s family members spoke on his behalf requesting leniency and suggesting that appellant committed the crimes because correctional officers were antagonizing him.