People v. Lorenzo CA2/5

Filed 10/14/20 P. v. Lorenzo CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B298311

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA102845) v.

JAIME LORENZO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Charles R. Khoury, Jr., 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Charles S. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Jaime Lorenzo appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.951 petition for resentencing. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings as set forth below.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We take our factual and procedural background from our second and most recent nonpublished opinion in this case, People v. Lorenzo (Feb. 19, 2019, B285142): “The following facts are from our prior nonpublished opinion in People v. Carino (Mar. 24, 2011, B220035), 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2246. In 2009, defendant was ‘convicted, following a jury trial, of the second degree murder of Albert Rojas in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1) and the first degree murder of Federico Perez also in violation of section 187, subdivision (a) (count 2). . . . The jury found true as to both [defendant and co-defendant David Carino] the allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of the murders within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1).’ (Ibid.) ‘The jury found not true the allegation that [defendant] personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b).’ (Ibid.) “‘The same jury convicted [co-defendant Cesar Cardenas] of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence in the death of Rojas, in violation of section 192, subdivision (c)(1).’ (Ibid.)