People v. Woods CA3

Filed 6/3/22 P. v. Woods CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C087859

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F00551)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

MONTRELL WOODS,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case returns to us following remand to the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether to strike defendant Montrell Woods’s firearm enhancement under Penal Code1 section 12022.53, subdivision (d) pursuant to the trial court’s authority under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) and the associated amendment to section 12022.53, subdivision (h), effective January 1, 2018. (People v. Woods (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1080, 1090-1091.) Section 12022.53, subdivision (h) gives trial courts discretion to “strike or dismiss” a section 12022.53 enhancement “in the interest of justice pursuant to [s]ection 1385 and at the time of sentencing . . . .”

1 All further section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 1

At resentencing, the trial court declined to strike the enhancement. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in two ways: (1) in failing to recognize its discretion to impose a lesser firearm enhancement in lieu of the 25-years-to-life enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) in the interests of justice, as stated in People v. Morrison (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 217; and (2) based on a serious mistake of law and fact regarding the impact of the enhancement on the timing of defendant’s first youthful offender parole hearing. We reverse. In an unpublished opinion, we initially affirmed and agreed with People v. Tirado (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 637 that, in considering whether to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement, the trial court did not have discretion to impose a lesser firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c). (People v. Woods (Jan. 10, 2020, C087859) [nonpub. opn.].) Thereafter, our Supreme Court issued People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, reversing the foregoing Tirado opinion and agreeing with Morrison, concluding, “[w]hen an accusatory pleading alleges and the jury finds true the facts supporting a section 12022.53(d) enhancement, and the court determines that the section 12022.53(d) enhancement should be struck or dismissed . . . the court may . . . impose an enhancement under section 12022.53(b) or (c).” (Tirado, 12 Cal.5th at pp. 697, 700.) Our Supreme Court then transferred this matter back to us with directions to vacate our prior unpublished decision and reconsider the cause in light of its opinion. The parties filed no supplemental briefs following transfer. Having reconsidered the matter, we reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing. Because we conclude the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion to impose a lesser firearm enhancement, we do not reach defendant’s secondary argument that the trial court made a serious mistake of law and fact regarding the impact of the enhancement on the timing of defendant’s first youthful offender parole hearing.