People v. Camarillo CA1/5

Filed 11/8/22 P. v. Camarillo CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163883 v. JESUS CAMARILLO, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR331711) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 After a jury found Jesus Camarillo guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (b); count 1)2 and attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 2) with true findings on firearm enhancements to both counts (§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (d)), the Solano Superior Court sentenced him to 47 years to life in prison. (People v. Camarillo (Jan. 20, 2021, A155577 [nonpub. opn.] pp. 1, 6–7.)3 This division affirmed his

Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., 1

rule 19. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. We grant Camarillo’s unopposed request for judicial notice of this 3

court’s records of his prior appeal (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d)), including this division’s prior opinion, which we cite only for background (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), (b); The Utility Reform Network v. Public Utilities Com. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 945, 951, fn. 3). We

1

convictions but remanded his case for resentencing under People v. Morrison (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 217 “to consider whether to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement and impose a lesser enhancement in connection with [his] second degree murder conviction.” (People v. Camarillo, at pp. 27, 28.) The court did just that when it resentenced him to 42 years to life, striking the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement to count 1 and imposing the subdivision (c) and subdivision (b) enhancements, staying the latter under section 654. Camarillo now appeals the resentencing order but for a different reason, arguing subsequent amendments to section 1170 require resentencing on count 2. The People agree he is at least entitled to a new sentencing hearing on count 2, and so do we, though we reject his related section 654 argument as to the stayed enhancement to count 1. We independently review these statutes’ interpretation and application. (People v. Childs (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1101.) In 2021 the Legislature amended the determinate sentencing law to mandate the lower term of imprisonment if any of three circumstances “was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense,” including if the offender “was a youth as defined under subdivision (b) of Section 1016.7 at the time . . . .” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6), (b)(6)(B), amended by Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3, No. 5E Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 609, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.)4 “A ‘youth’ [is] any person under 26 years of age on the date the offense was committed.” (§ 1016.7, subd. (b), added by Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 4, No. 5E