People v. Mathis CA5

Filed 7/22/21 P. v. Mathis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080260, F080262 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 18CR-03247, v. 17CR-03659)

RANDALL STEVEN MATHIS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Paul C. Lo, Judge. Deanna L. Lopas, 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, Daniel B. Bernstein and Peter H. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant Randall Steven Mathis entered a stipulated plea agreement that included three one-year prior prison term enhancements. He contends on appeal that his three enhancements 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 agree. We strike defendant’s prior prison term enhancements. As so modified, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On November 3, 2017, the Merced County District Attorney filed an information in case No. 17CR-03659, charging defendant with burglary (§ 459; count 1). The information further alleged defendant had served six prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On January 10, 2018, pursuant to a stipulated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted having suffered three prior prison terms. The admitted prior prison terms were served for 2008, 2010, and 2012 burglary convictions. In exchange for his plea, the court struck the three remaining enhancement allegations and indicated a six-year term of imprisonment, suspended pending defendant’s successful completion of the Merced County drug treatment program. On the same date, the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated sentence as follows: on count 1, three years (the upper term) plus three one-year prior prison term enhancements. The court suspended the sentence and granted defendant a term of probation, requiring defendant to successfully complete a drug treatment program. On July 5, 2018, the Merced County District Attorney filed a complaint in case No. 18CR-03247, charging defendant with grand theft (§ 487; count 1). On August 1, 2018, pursuant to a stipulated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 1 in case No. 18CR-03247. In exchange for his plea, the trial court