People v. Siackasorn CA3

Filed 9/12/22 P. v. Siackasorn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094024

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 07F11789)

v.

JIMMY KEE SIACKASORN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jimmy Kee Siackasorn appeals from his April 2021 resentencing and, specifically, from the trial court’s denial of his request to strike a firearm sentencing enhancement imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d). 1 Defendant contends our Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688 (Tirado) requires that we vacate his sentence and remand for the trial court to

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

exercise the discretion clarified by Tirado to strike the enhancement and impose a lesser enhancement in its stead. The Attorney General responds defendant forfeited this argument by not raising it in the trial court and, in any event, the record clearly indicates the trial court would not have stricken the enhancement even if it had been aware of its option to impose a lesser enhancement. We agree with the latter point and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In 2010, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder of a peace officer (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and found true an allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court declined to exercise its discretion to impose a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for murder and instead sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(7), 190.5), denied defendant’s motion to find the LWOP sentence unconstitutional, and imposed a consecutive term of 25 years to life in prison for the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed his conviction and sentence. (People v. Siackasorn (May 17, 2012, C065399) [nonpub. opn.], review granted Aug. 29, 2012, S203568, and matter transferred with directions.) The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to this court with directions to reconsider in light of the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460. On transfer, this court affirmed defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for the trial court to resentence defendant without considering LWOP as the presumptive sentencing choice. (People v. Siackasorn (Dec. 7, 2012, C065399) [nonpub. opn.], review granted Mar. 20, 2013, S207973, review dism. July 9, 2014.) On remand, the trial court determined that defendant was one of the rare juvenile offenders referenced by Miller for whom LWOP was the appropriate sentence, and again imposed a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. (See Miller, at pp. 479-480.)