People v. Hernandez CA5

Filed 4/17/23 P. v. Hernandez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F084020 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Merced Super. Ct. v. No. 15CR-00084A)

VICTOR ALFONSO HERNANDEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W. Hansen, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Merced Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Law Offices of Beles & Beles, Robert J. Beles, and Micah Reyner for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench, and Cameron Goodman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Defendant and appellant Victor Alfonso Hernandez challenges the denial of his petition to vacate a conviction pursuant to former Penal Code section 1170.95.1 We reject his claim and affirm the order. BACKGROUND On April 26, 2016, the Merced County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Victor Alfonso Hernandez (defendant) and his codefendant, William White, with several crimes. The information charged defendant with murder (count 1; § 187, subd. (a)) with a personal firearm use enhancement (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b) & 12022.5, subd. (a)); and two counts of home invasion robbery (counts 2–3; §§ 211, 213) with personal firearm use enhancements (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The information further alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike adjudication when he was at least 16 years of age (§§ 667, subd. (d) & 1170.12, subd. (b)). A jury convicted defendant on all counts and found true each of the weapon enhancements. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the prior juvenile adjudication/strike allegation true. The court sentenced defendant to 35 years four months, plus 60 years to life in prison. The determinate sentence was comprised of the following: the upper term of nine years on count two, doubled to 18 years due to the prior strike, plus 10 years for the gun enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); two years on count 3, doubled to four years due to the prior strike, plus three years four months for the gun enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The indeterminate sentence was comprised of 25 years for count 1, doubled to 50 years for the prior strike, plus 10 years for the gun enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).)