People v. Valencia CA3

Filed 2/15/22 P. v. Valencia CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Colusa) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091120

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR61155)

v.

HAURILIO SILVA VALENCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Haurilio Silva Valencia guilty of making criminal threats, theft by larceny, and resisting a peace officer. In a bifurcated bench trial, the trial court found true the allegations that defendant suffered four prior serious felony convictions. Defendant now argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive five-year enhancement terms on all four prior convictions when the prosecution failed to prove that they were each separately tried and proven. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike his prior convictions under the Three Strikes law.

1

We agree with the Attorney General that two of the five-year enhancements must be vacated. As modified, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts underlying the convictions are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. It suffices to say that defendant had a confrontation with Guillermo G. Defendant took an electric grinder and landscaping shears from the back of Guillermo’s truck without permission while threatening to beat up and kill Guillermo. After Guillermo fled, defendant turned over the landscaping shears to a worker at a nearby market before he walked home. Guillermo called 911 a few minutes after he drove away. When sheriff’s deputies met defendant at his home, defendant was not cooperative. The officers arrested defendant, and when two officers attempted to take him to the squad car, defendant swept one officer’s leg, causing all three of them to fall on top of one another. The prosecution charged defendant with second degree robbery (Pen. Code § 211);1 making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)); and resisting an executive officer (§ 69). As to all three counts, the prosecution alleged that defendant suffered multiple prior strike convictions under the Three Strikes law. (§ 667, subd. (e)(1).) The prosecution also alleged that defendant suffered four prior serious felonies, each subject to a five-year enhancement. (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).) The jury found defendant guilty of theft by larceny (§ 484, a lesser included offense to the robbery charge); criminal threats; and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a), a lesser included offense to the resisting an executive officer charge). In a bifurcated bench trial, the trial court found true the allegations that defendant had four prior serious convictions and at least two prior strike convictions.