People v. Vigil CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Jul 28, 2022 No. B315445Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of Assembly Bill 518, which grants trial courts discretion to impose sentence on either of the penal provisions when a defendant is punishable under multiple statutes.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of Assembly Bill 518 regarding sentencing under Penal Code section 654.
Whether the record clearly indicates the trial court would not impose a lesser sentence, thereby rendering remand unnecessary.

Disposition. Remanded with instructions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because Vigil’s sentence was not final on January 1, 2022, when AB 518 took effect, he is entitled to its ameliorative effect.”

“we cannot be certain what the trial court would do with its newfound discretion under AB 518. For this reason, and because Vigil’s liberty interest is at stake, we remand the cases for reconsideration in light of AB 518.”

Filed 7/28/22 P. v. Vigil CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B315445

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. KA117978, v. KA117413 AARON ANTHONY VIGIL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mike Camacho. Remanded with instructions. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

In two separate jury trials, defendant and appellant Aaron Anthony Vigil was convicted of various crimes, including mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to an upper term on the mayhem count and stayed sentencing on the assault count under Penal Code section 654.1 On appeal, this court concluded the trial court prejudicially erred by relying on improper aggravating factors in imposing the upper term on the mayhem count. We remanded the matter to the trial court for a resentencing hearing. At the resentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Vigil to a middle term on the mayhem count. Vigil now raises one contention on appeal – that the matter should be remanded to allow the trial court to reconsider his sentence in light of recently-enacted Assembly Bill 518 (AB 518). AB 518 amended section 654 by removing the requirement that a defendant be punished for the offense with the longest term of imprisonment (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats 2021, Ch. 441). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Vigil and remand the case for the trial court to consider whether to grant him relief under AB 518. BACKGROUND2

In case KA117413, a jury convicted Vigil of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count one) and mayhem (§ 203; count two). The jury also found he personally used a

People v. Vigil CA2/4

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, B315445

INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

MANELLA, P.J.

COLLINS, J.

AI Brief