People v. Sanchez CA6

Filed 3/21/23 P. v. Sanchez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H049354 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19CR01173)

v.

DANIEL FUENTES SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Fuentes Sanchez pleaded guilty to two felony charges and no contest to one felony charge after a jury failed to reach a verdict. On appeal, Sanchez contends that his case should be reversed and remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)1 by Senate Bill No. 567 (2020-2021 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3). The Attorney General argues that remand is unwarranted because any error was harmless. We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings under the newly-amended section 1170. I. Procedural Background2 On October 6, 2020, the Santa Cruz County District Attorney filed an amended information charging Sanchez with evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1); hit and run driving resulting in injury to another person (Veh. Code, § 20001,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 We have omitted the facts of the offense because they are not relevant to the

analysis and disposition of this appeal.

subd. (b)(1); count 2); driving under the influence of a drug causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f); count 3); resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 4); possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a); count 5); and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377; count 6). The amended information also alleged a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b), and a prior strike conviction under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The case proceeded to a jury trial, after which the jury found Sanchez guilty of count 4 and not guilty of counts 5 and 6. The jury failed to reach a verdict on counts 1, 2, and 3, and the court declared a mistrial as to those counts. Before his scheduled re-trial on the unresolved charges, the trial court indicated that it would grant a Romero3 motion to dismiss the strike allegation and sentence Sanchez to a suspended three-year upper term on count 1. As a result, Sanchez pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2, and he pleaded no contest to count 3. He also admitted his prior strike conviction, and the court struck the alleged prior prison term enhancement. At the sentencing hearing, in the context of its ruling on the Romero motion, the court discussed Sanchez’s criminal record, as well as the positive changes that Sanchez made in his life over the course of this case. The trial court granted Sanchez’s Romero motion to dismiss the strike allegation, over the opposition of the prosecution. The court then sentenced Sanchez to the upper term of three years for count 1, but the court ordered execution of that sentence suspended and ordered Sanchez placed on formal felony probation for two years. The court also imposed concurrent 90-day jail terms for counts