People v. Mora CA5

Filed 10/28/20 P. v. Mora 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080173 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF175813A) v.

SALVADOR CHAVAR MORA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John R. Brownlee, Judge. Catherine White, 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 Ian P. Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

Defendant Salvador Chavar Mora contends on appeal that his five one-year prior prison term enhancements should be stricken pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b),1 as amended by Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136). The People concede the enhancements should be stricken. We strike the prior prison term enhancements and affirm in all other respects. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On September 5, 2019,2 the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant in an amended information with unlawful driving or taking a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1) and misdemeanor possession of a known stolen motor vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a); count 3).3 As to both counts, the amended information alleged defendant had suffered a prior conviction for possession of a known stolen vehicle (§ 666.5, subd. (a)), committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), had suffered a prior felony “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), had suffered a serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and had served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On September 11, the jury found defendant guilty on both counts but could not come to a unanimous finding on the gang allegations. The trial court declared a mistrial on the gang allegations. On the same date, in a bifurcated trial, the court struck the prior

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 All further dates refer to the year 2019 unless otherwise stated. 3 Defendant was originally charged in count 2 with felony possession of a known stolen motor vehicle as a felony. Defendant moved to reduce count 2 to a misdemeanor. The prosecutor agreed and moved to file an amended information. The trial court granted both motions. The amended information contained only counts 1 and 3.