People v. Felix CA5

Filed 12/30/20 P. v. Felix 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080189 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-18-004767) v.

EDGAR FELIX, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nancy Ashley, Judge. Lynette Gladd Moore, 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, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M. Vasquez, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Meehan, Acting P.J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Edgar Felix was sentenced to an agreed-upon term of imprisonment based on a plea agreement. He contends on appeal that the one-year prior prison term enhancement imposed as part of the plea agreement 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 parties agree defendant is entitled to the benefit of Senate Bill 136. Defendant contends we may strike the enhancement without remanding the matter to the trial court. The People contend the trial court and the People must be permitted to rescind approval of the plea agreement in light of People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685 (Stamps). We vacate the sentence, order the prior prison term enhancement stricken, and remand for further proceedings consistent with Stamps. In all other respects, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 10, 2018, the Stanislaus County District Attorney charged defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1), being a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and driving without a valid driver’s license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, the complaint alleged defendant had suffered a prior felony “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On September 9, 2019, defendant entered a plea of no contest on count 1 and admitted the prior prison term allegation. The prior prison term was served for a conviction of burglary (§ 459). The plea agreement stipulated that the prior strike conviction would be stricken for the purposes of the Three Strikes law sentencing pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and the court