People v. Rhoades CA2/4

Filed 12/8/20 P. v. Rhoades CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B302808

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA113274) v.

RICHARD DANIEL RHOADES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bruce F. Marrs, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Zulu Ali & Associates and Whitney Ali for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Nikhil Cooper, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION After a jury convicted appellant Richard Daniel Rhoades of attempted robbery and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, the court sentenced him to 12 years in prison. Because the court found appellant had previously been convicted of a serious felony, the sentence included a then mandatory five-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) (Section 667(a)(1)).1 While appellant’s appeal was pending, the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 1393, granting sentencing courts discretion to strike Section 667(a)(1) enhancements in the interest of justice. Thus, while we affirmed the judgment, we remanded the matter to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion. In accordance with our directive, the trial court held a hearing in September 2019 to decide whether to strike the five-year enhancement based on appellant’s prior serious felony. After hearing appellant argue the same points he now argues on appeal, the court declined to strike the enhancement and reimposed the sentence previously imposed. On appeal, appellant contends the court abused its discretion by declining to strike the enhancement, both