People v. Shelton CA2/1

Filed 10/21/21 P. v. Shelton CA2/1 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B299376

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA093524) v.

RANDALL ALEXANDER SHELTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sean D. Coen, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Linda L. Gordon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________

In 2019, the trial court ordered defendant and appellant Randall Alexander Shelton to serve seven years in prison. The sentence, which the trial court had imposed but suspended five years earlier, included two1 1-year enhancements under Penal Code2 section 667.5, subdivision (b) for so-called “prison-prior” felonies. When Shelton violated his probation, the trial court ordered the execution of the suspended sentence. Shelton contends that the enhancements must be stricken in light of Senate Bill No. 136 (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020), which became effective before Shelton’s probation revocation became final and which eliminated section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements for defendants who, like Shelton, have not committed sexually violent offenses. In a previous opinion, we rejected Shelton’s claim, but the Supreme Court ordered us to vacate the decision and reconsider the case in light of its opinion in People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671 (Esquivel). We now order the enhancements stricken.