People v. Villa CA3

Filed 5/9/22 P. v. Villa CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C089392

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15F01261)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

ADAM VILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Adam Villa and codefendants Joshua Parrish and Frank Camacho were convicted of attempted murder, attempted robbery, and related firearm crimes. On appeal, defendant initially argued that his conviction for attempted murder must be reversed under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437). Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, defendant also argued the trial court erred in imposing certain fines, fees, and assessments without holding a hearing to determine his ability to pay them. In an unpublished opinion, we modified the judgment to effectuate Penal Code section 6541 by imposing and staying a full term for the attempted robbery conviction

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

and associated firearm enhancement, and affirmed the judgment as modified. (People v. Villa (July 14, 2020, C089392) [nonpub. opn.].) The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill 775). In supplemental briefing on transfer of this case, defendant argues his conviction for attempted murder must be reversed under Senate Bill 775. The People declined to file a posttransfer brief. We agree with defendant. We will reverse defendant’s conviction for attempted murder and the associated firearm enhancement, remand the matter to give the People the opportunity to retry defendant on the attempted murder charge and the associated firearm enhancement and, if the People decline to do so, instruct the trial court to conduct a full resentencing on the remaining conviction and enhancement. (See People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 896, fn. 15.) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Given defendant’s contentions on appeal, we provide only a brief recitation of the facts.2 In February 2015, defendant, Parrish, and Camacho arrived at the victim’s home under the pretext of purchasing marijuana. When the victim opened the door, defendant pointed a gun in his face. The victim, who was unarmed, began fighting with defendant over the gun. Meanwhile, the two other men, who also were armed, pushed their way inside. During the melee, the three intruders each shot at the victim a total of five to 10 times. The victim’s friend, who was visiting the victim at the time of the incident, testified at trial that he heard defendant say, “[E]verybody just chill out. We’re here just