People v. Macias CA5

Filed 12/1/20 P. v. Macias 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080476 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F19904263) v.

MONICA MARIE MACIAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Heather Mardel Jones, Judge. William D. Farber, 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 Cavan M. Cox II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Defendant Monica Marie Macias contends on appeal that her one-year prior prison term enhancement 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 enhancement should be stricken. We strike the prior prison term enhancement, remand for resentencing, and affirm in all other respects. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On June 28, 2019,2 the Fresno County District Attorney charged defendant with identity theft with prior convictions for the same (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2); count 1). The complaint further alleged defendant had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On October 15, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to the charge and admitted the truth of one prior prison term allegation3 in exchange for a stipulated term of two years four months’ imprisonment. On the prosecutor’s motion, the trial court dismissed the other two prior prison term enhancement allegations. On the same date, prior to entry of the plea, the prosecutor and trial court discussed the impact of Senate Bill 136 on the sentence. The trial court explained that Senate Bill 136 “eliminates the one-year prison prior enhancement under [section] 667.5[, subdivision (b)], except for a sexually-violent offense.” In response, the prosecutor indicated that he “made this offer and [would] stand by it .…” The trial court asked the prosecutor whether “the People [were] going to argue that they’ve lost the benefit of their bargain” if the court imposed two years and declined to impose the prior prison term enhancement.