People v. Titman CA3

Filed 12/16/21 P. v. Titman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092600

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE000405)

v.

JAMES TITMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant James Titman appeals from judgment entered after his resentencing on remand. As we next explain, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND A jury found defendant guilty of multiple charges related to resisting a peace officer, and found true three prior prison term enhancements. The enhancement at issue in this appeal resulted from defendant’s 1995 conviction for two counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a person under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 288, subd. (a).)

1

Defendant’s case was not yet final when Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 136) took effect in January 2020 and amended the Penal Code such that this enhancement applied only if the prior prison term was served for a “sexually violent offense” as defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code, section 6600, subdivision (b).1 (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) Accordingly, when adjudicating defendant’s direct appeal, we struck two of his prior prison term enhancements and, because we also reversed a count of conviction and remanded for full resentencing, we directed the trial court to determine whether the remaining prior prison term resulted from a sexually violent offense. (People v. Titman (Feb. 5, 2020, C085354) [nonpub. opn.].) In August 2020, the trial court held a resentencing hearing and found that defendant’s prior conviction qualified as a sexually violent offense without regard to the underlying factual basis, as we describe in more detail post. The court imposed the one- year enhancement as part of an aggregate seven-year state prison sentence. Defendant timely appealed. Tthe case was fully briefed on June 8, 2021, but was not assigned to this panel for review until August 31, 2021. On appeal, defendant challenges only the trial court’s classification of his prior conviction under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) as a sexually violent offense and resulting imposition of the one-year enhancement. DISCUSSION We review de novo the proper interpretation of a statute. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961.) Our fundamental task is to “ascertain the Legislature’s intent in order to effectuate the law’s purpose. We must look to the statute’s words and give them their ‘usual and ordinary meaning.’ [Citation.] ‘The statute’s plain meaning controls the