People v. Hansen CA5

Filed 4/16/21 P. v. Hansen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080006 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-19-005448) v.

RAYMOND HANSEN, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nancy Ashley, Judge.

Carla J. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance A. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Ian Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Raymond Hansen, Jr., entered into a negotiated plea agreement in which he pled no contest to felony hit and run with injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); count I) and admitted a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, former subd. (b)). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Pursuant to the agreement, the court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of four years plus a consecutive one-year term for the prior prison term enhancement, for a total term of five years. After defendant was sentenced, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136), which provides a prior prison term enhancement will only apply if a defendant served the prior prison term for a qualifying “sexually violent offense” as that phrase is defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b). On appeal, defendant asks us to apply Senate Bill 136 retroactively and strike his prior prison term enhancement. The People agree defendant’s prior prison term enhancement should be stricken pursuant to Senate Bill 136 and they assert, because defendant received the maximum possible sentence for his conviction and he admitted no enhancements other than the now-invalid prison prior, remand is not necessary for resentencing. We agree the prior prison term enhancement is no longer authorized and must be stricken but conclude remand is necessary for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685 (Stamps). FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with felony hit and run with injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a) (count I), three serious felony strike priors pursuant to section 667, subdivision (d), and a one-year prison prior enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b). He was also charged with misdemeanor manslaughter in violation of section 192, subdivision (c)(2) in count II.