People v. Medrano CA5

Filed 11/17/21 P. v. Medrano 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F081667 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF159394A) v.

MICHAEL CHALILLO MEDRANO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge.

Solomon Wollack, 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, Carlos A. Martinez and Caely E. Fallini, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

In People v. Rodriguez (Feb. 25, 2020, F074250) (nonpub. opn.) (Rodriguez), this court affirmed a judgment of conviction against Michael Chalillo Medrano (defendant) for his role in a murder. However, based on the postsentencing enactment of Senate Bill No. 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 620), which gave trial courts discretion to strike firearm enhancements, the matter was conditionally remanded for further proceedings. Defendant now challenges the trial court’s decision to impose applicable enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53 (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code). Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A jury convicted defendant of premeditated murder (§§ 187, 189, subd. (a)) involving the special circumstances of lying in wait and killing someone to further the activities of the criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15), (22)). The evidence showed defendant used a firearm and shot the victim six times at close range, including twice in the head. Accordingly, the jury made true findings on gun enhancement allegations pleaded pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). Defendant was also convicted of carrying a loaded firearm as an active gang member (§ 25850, subd. (c)(3)); active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)); and conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187). In August 2016, the trial court imposed a statutorily mandated sentence for the murder count of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and 25 years to life for the related firearm enhancement. The punishment imposed for other counts and enhancements was stayed pursuant to section 654. In January 2018, while an appeal of the judgment was pending, section 12022.53 was amended by the enactment of Senate Bill 620. (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2.) As a result, trial courts may, “in the interest of justice pursuant to Section 1385 and at the time of sentencing, strike or dismiss [a firearm] enhancement otherwise required to be imposed ….” (§ 12022.53, subd. (h).) In Rodriguez, this court determined Senate Bill