People v. Young CA2/8

Filed 9/24/20 P. v. Young CA2/8 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B291756

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA097437) v.

BARRICK YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Robert F. Somers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Nicholas J. Webster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________

INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Barrick Young was convicted of first degree burglary. He was sentenced to eight years for the burglary, plus 10 years for two prior serious felony convictions. After Young was convicted, the Legislature enacted Penal Code section 1001.36,1 which created a pretrial diversion program for defendants with mental disorders. While Young’s case was pending on appeal, the Legislature also enacted amendments to sections 1385 and 667, subdivision (a), which gave trial courts discretion to dismiss sentencing enhancements for prior serious felony convictions. In a prior appeal, we agreed sections 1385 and 667 applied retroactively, but we rejected Young’s contention section 1001.36 applied retroactively to his case. The California Supreme Court granted review and remanded for reconsideration in light of People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 (Frahs), which held section 1001.36 applies to cases pending on appeal. In light of Frahs, we conditionally reverse Young’s conviction and sentence and remand for the trial court to conduct a mental health diversion eligibility hearing pursuant to section 1001.36 in accordance with our instructions infra. If the court denies diversion, or if the court grants diversion but Young fails to complete it, his conviction and sentence shall be reinstated and the court shall conduct a sentencing hearing to consider whether to strike either or both prior serious felony enhancements pursuant to sections 1385 and 667.