People v. Loredo CA2/1

Filed 9/25/20 P. v. Loredo CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B301533

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA066378) v.

BRANDON LOREDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Reversed in part with directions. _______________ Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, and Annalee Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant Brandon Loredo, also known as Brandon Beau Gonzalez,1 of attempted premeditated murder and assault with a deadly weapon, and found true special allegations that Loredo committed these offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang, personally used a deadly weapon, and personally inflicted great bodily injury. The court sentenced him to 15 years to life for the premeditated attempted murder conviction, plus 10 years for the gang enhancement, three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, and two years for the deadly weapon enhancement, all to be served consecutively. Several years later, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the CDCR) sent the trial court a letter identifying, based on the CDCR’s review of the abstract of judgment and sentencing transcript, two potential errors in Loredo’s sentence. The letter asked the court to “review [the court’s] file to determine if a correction is required.” In response to the CDCR’s letter, the court held a hearing and ultimately concluded that only one of the issues identified in the letter—imposition of an inapplicable deadly weapon enhancement— required correction. At the hearing, the court also denied a motion by Loredo to strike the gang enhancement—an issue not raised in the CDCR’s letter—in the interest of justice under Penal Code2 section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). (See § 1170, subd. (d)(1) [permitting resentencing on the recommendation of, inter alia, the CDCR, to “reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . if it is in the interest of