People v. Mateos CA3

Filed 1/4/23 P. v. Mateos CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095620

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFECOD20150007171) v.

JUAN MATEOS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Juan Mateos, Jr., was originally sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for attempted premeditated murder, plus a consecutive 20 years for an attached firearm enhancement, with other firearm enhancements imposed and stayed. This court affirmed his convictions but remanded for resentencing on multiple firearm enhancements. Upon remand, the trial court struck two firearm enhancements, including the 20-year enhancement previously imposed, lifted the stay on a third firearm enhancement, and imposed a consecutive low term of three years for that enhancement.

1

Defendant appeals for the second time, arguing that newly enacted Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1) (Senate Bill 81), which amended Penal Code section 1385 to specify factors that the trial court must consider when deciding whether to strike enhancements in the interest of justice, required the trial court to strike the three-year firearm enhancement. (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) We note that a subsequent enactment, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 15), which took effect on June 30, 2022, made technical, nonsubstantive changes to section 1385 that do not affect the issues on appeal. We disagree with defendant’s arguments and affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In 2017, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted premeditated murder. (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a).) The jury also found several firearm enhancements true, including that during the offense, defendant intentionally and personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). At the initial sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a life sentence plus 20 years for the intentional and personal discharge of a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and imposed and stayed 10-year terms for each of the remaining firearm enhancements. This court affirmed defendant’s convictions, but remanded for the trial court to consider its newfound discretion to strike the firearm enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). (People v. Mateos (Nov. 20, 2020, C085250) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant was resentenced in January 2022. At the hearing, defendant argued Senate Bill 81 mandated dismissal of all three firearm enhancements, and that even if dismissal was not required, the court should nevertheless exercise its discretion to strike