People v. Minnich CA5

Filed 3/30/22 P. v. Minnich 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F082498 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1495998) v.

MARSHALL SCOTT MINNICH, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Dawna Reeves, Judge. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2018, a jury convicted appellant Marshall Scott Minnich of two counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459;1 counts I & IV) and one count of robbery (§ 211; count II).2 In count II (robbery), the trial court sentenced appellant to prison for three years, which was doubled because of a prior strike conviction. In count IV (burglary), the court imposed a consecutive term of one year four months. A five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a), was imposed for a prior serious felony conviction. The sentence on the other burglary conviction was stayed. Appellant received an aggregate prison term of 12 years four months. In 2020, this court issued an unpublished opinion in which we rejected appellant’s claim that insufficient evidence supported his robbery conviction. However, we agreed with the parties that resentencing was required following Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017- 2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1393). We remanded this matter with directions for the trial court to exercise its discretion to dismiss or strike the five-year enhancement imposed under section 667, subdivision (a). We otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Minnich (July 23, 2020, F077819).)3 On February 26, 2021, the trial court declined to strike the five-year enhancement previously imposed under section 667, subdivision (a). The court imposed the same prison term previously ordered. In the present appeal, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike the five-year enhancement imposed under section 667, subdivision (a). We affirm.