People v. Caro CA2/6

Filed 10/26/22 P. v. Caro CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B315233 (Super. Ct. No. BA450645) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

JOSE CARO,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2016, appellant Jose Caro was charged with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 1),1 kidnapping to commit rape (§ 209, subd. (b)(1); count 2), assault with intent to commit a sex offense (§ 220, subd. (a)(1); count 3), assault with deadly weapons (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 4 & 5), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 6), recklessly fleeing a police car (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count 7) and stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a);

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated.

count 8). As to counts 1 through 3, appellant was alleged to have used deadly weapons (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). After the People amended count 2 to charge simple kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), appellant pled no contest to counts 1 through 6 and count 8. He also admitted use of a deadly weapon as to counts 1 and 2. Pursuant to the parties’ plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to 22 years in prison. The stipulated sentence was comprised of the following: (1) as to count 1, the upper term of nine years, plus one year for the deadly weapon use enhancement; (2) as to count 2, one year and eight months, plus one year for the deadly weapon use enhancement; (3) as to count 3, the upper term of six years; (4) as to counts 4 and 5, one year each; and (5) as to counts 6 and 8, eight months each. Per the plea bargain, the trial court dismissed count 7 and the count 3 enhancement. Appellant contends recently enacted Senate Bill No. 567 (S.B. No. 567) requires a remand because he did not admit, and the trial court did not find, that circumstances in aggravation of the offenses justified a sentence exceeding the middle term. He further contends the court erroneously denied two of his four Marsden2 motions. We reject both contentions and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND For several weeks, appellant repeatedly visited the victim’s workplace. To discourage appellant’s attentions, the victim said she was married. Appellant wanted to know who the victim’s husband was so that he could hurt him.