People v. Mateos CA3

California Court of Appeal Nov 20, 2020 No. C085250Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that because the trial court was unaware of its discretionary authority to strike firearm enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620 at the time of sentencing, and the record did not clearly indicate it would have refused to do so, a remand for resentencing is required.

Issues

Whether the trial court must be remanded to exercise its discretion to strike firearm enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620.
Whether the trial court should be permitted to supplement the record with evidence relevant to a youth offender parole hearing on remand.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the record does not clearly indicate the trial court’s intent, we shall remand the matter for the court to exercise its discretion under SB 620 to determine whether to strike defendant’s firearm enhancements.”

Filed 11/20/20 P. v. Mateos CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C085250

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFECOD20150007171) v.

JUAN MATEOS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Juan Mateos, Jr., asks us to remand to provide the trial court an opportunity to strike his firearm enhancement under Senate Bill No. 620 (SB 620). He also asks that as part of a remand, we permit the trial court to exercise its discretion to allow him to supplement the record with evidence relevant to striking the enhancement and his eventual youthful offender parole hearing. We affirm the judgment but remand for resentencing on the firearm enhancements.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Because this appeal concerns only defendant’s sentence, we need not recite the facts in detail. Defendant and his girlfriend were living in a homeless encampment.

Their relationship was abusive. The girlfriend announced she was moving, and she began moving her belongings with the help of another male, the victim. Defendant and the victim fought. The victim verbally threatened to kill defendant. Defendant asked a friend to bring him a weapon. The friend brought a loaded, sawed-off shotgun. When defendant next saw the victim, he aimed the gun at the victim’s head and fired. The victim ducked behind a pillar and the shot missed. A jury found defendant guilty of attempted premediated murder and found true allegations that he purposely used a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 664; 12022.5, subd. (a); 12022.53, subds. (b), (c).) (Subsequent references to statutes are to the Penal Code unless noted otherwise.) The trial court sentenced defendant to a mandatory prison term of life with the possibility of parole, plus a mandatory 20 years for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (c). The court imposed and stayed the upper term of 10- years for the enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a), and another 10 years for the enhancement under 12022.53, subdivision (b).

People v. Mateos CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C085250

JUAN MATEOS, JR.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

MURRAY, J.

RENNER, J.

AI Brief