People v. Banks CA2/1

Filed 11/1/21 P. v. Banks CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B306135

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA142468) v.

EDWARD E. BANKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kelvin D. Filer, Judge. Reversed. ____________________________

Julie Caleca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Nathan Guttman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

In 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant and appellant Edward Eugene Banks to 60 years 8 months in prison for one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and one count of making a criminal threat (§ 422, subd. (a)). The sentence for murder included an enhancement of 25 years to life for personally discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), as well as a five-year enhancement because Banks had previously been convicted of a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). At the time the court imposed the sentence, the enhancements were mandatory, but while Banks’s appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted laws giving courts the discretion to strike them: Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682) (Senate Bill No. 620) allows trial courts to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements for purposes of sentencing. Senate Bill No. 1393 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013) (Senate Bill No. 1393) does the same for serious felony enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Both laws apply retroactively to defendants like Banks whose cases were not final at the time the laws became effective. (See People v. Woods (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1080, 1090–1091; People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 971–973.) We affirmed Banks’s convictions on appeal, but we remanded the case to the trial court to allow the court to consider striking the enhancements. (See People v. Banks (May 31, 2019, B286858), opn. ordered mod. June 17, 2019 [nonpub. opn.] (Banks).)2