People v. Edwards CA1/3

Filed 11/9/21 P. v. Edwards CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159264 v. JAHMAL MARSHALLE EDWARDS, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 18CR019853) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Jahmal Marshalle Edwards started a fire in a San Leandro department store to create a distraction as he attempted to steal leather jackets. The fire damaged the store and its merchandise. A jury convicted Edwards of arson (§ 451, subd. (d), count 2) and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a), count 3), and it found true an allegation that Edwards had a prior arson conviction (§ 451.1, subd. (a)). The trial court found Edwards had a prior arson conviction (§ 451.1, subd. (a)), which constituted a prior strike under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) and a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)).

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1, reciting only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

The court also found Edwards had served a prison term for possession of ammunition by a prohibited person. (§§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (b).) In 2019, the court sentenced Edwards to 17 years in state prison, comprised of the aggravated three-year term on count 2, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, five years for the prior arson conviction enhancement, and five years for the prior serious felony conviction. The court also imposed a mandatory one-year enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b). On count 3, the court imposed a concurrent one-year jail term. The court awarded Edwards 371 days of presentence credit, comprised of 323 days of actual credit and 48 days of conduct credit. Edwards raises three claims of sentencing error. The Attorney General concedes the claims are meritorious. First, the parties agree — as do we — that the prison prior enhancement must be stricken pursuant to Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), which amended section 667.5 effective January 1, 2020. (People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337, 340–341.) Under this legislation, a section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement is mandatory only if the defendant served a prior prison term for a sexually violent offense as defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Lopez, at pp. 340–341.) The amended law applies to Edwards as his sentence was not final when Senate Bill No. 136 took effect, and his conviction for possession of ammunition by a prohibited person is not a sexually violent offense. (Lopez, at p. 341.) We modify the judgment to strike the prison prior enhancement. As the Attorney General acknowledges, an appellate court may strike such an enhancement without remanding for resentencing when, as here, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence. (People v. Gastelum (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 757, 762, 773; People v. Lopez, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at