People v. Garth CA1/1

Filed 5/12/22 P. v. Garth CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A164094 v. ARIANA IRISHA GARTH, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. 21CR002337)

After defendant Ariana Irisha Garth pleaded no contest to evading a peace officer, grand theft, and resisting arrest, the trial court sentenced her to two years in state prison. Her sole contention on appeal is that she is entitled to resentencing under the recently enacted ameliorative amendments to Penal Code section 1170. The People agree. We accept the Attorney General’s concession, vacate defendant’s sentence, and remand for resentencing in light of amended Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b). In all other respects, we affirm. BACKGROUND In October 2021, then 20-year-old Ariana Garth entered a Sunglasses Hut with two associates. The three proceeded to fill bags with approximately $30,000 of merchandise and fled the store without paying. They left in an

1

SUV that defendant was driving, and defendant led police on a high-speed chase. The district attorney filed a complaint alleging one count of felony evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), one count of felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a))1 and one count of misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant pleaded no contest. At the November 2021 sentencing hearing, defense counsel asked the court to consider the low term and refer defendant to probation citing two “ameliorative sentencing statutes” that would amend section 1170 and would be applicable to defendant as she was “under the age of 26” and because of the “childhood turmoil and trauma” she has suffered. The court weighed defendant’s youth and “any hardships that she’s had since a child” against her prior history on probation, and the “fact that she led law enforcement on a high-speed [chase],” among other factors, and sentenced defendant to two years in prison consisting of the midterm of two years for the evading a peace officer count and the low term of 16 months to be served concurrently for the grand theft count. However, the court noted that in the event “there’s an Appellate Court ruling or if there’s a bill that does pass, and I’m required to take a second look at this case, I will do so.” DISCUSSION Approximately one month later, such events came to pass, as “Effective January 1, 2022, our determinate sentencing law, section 1170, was amended in several fundamental ways. (See Sen. Bill No. 567 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.); Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3; Assem. Bill No. 124 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.); Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 5.)” (People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1038