People v. Rios CA2/3

Filed 9/15/22 P. v. Rios CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B318366

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA070266) v.

REYES RIOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard M. Goul, Judge. Reversed with directions. 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, Assistant Attorney General, Blythe J. Leszkay and Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Reyes Rios appeals from an order denying his petition to redesignate or dismiss his conviction for the sale or transportation of marijuana pursuant to Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. (Health 1 & Saf. Code, §§ 11360, 11361.8, subd. (e); see Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop. 64, pp. 207–208.) Rios contends the trial court erred in denying his petition on the ground that his conviction for the sale of methamphetamine is not a qualifying offense. The Attorney General concedes this point, and we agree that the matter must be remanded for further proceedings. BACKGROUND In 2006, Rios pleaded no contest to one count of the sale of methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)) and one count of the sale or transportation of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Rios to two concurrent terms of four years in prison. In January 2022, Rios filed an application pursuant to section 11361.8 to redesignate or dismiss his conviction for the sale or transportation of marijuana. The trial court denied the application on the ground that Rios’s conviction for the sale of methamphetamine was not an offense eligible for reduction. Rios timely appealed. DISCUSSION On appeal, Rios contends the trial court’s determination that his sale of methamphetamine conviction rendered him ineligible for redesignation under Proposition 64 was erroneous,