People v. Moss CA1/3

Filed 6/23/23 P. v. Moss CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165376 v. CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MOSS, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 174516) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION While armed with a firearm, Christopher Edward Moss kidnapped, robbed, burglarized, and sexually assaulted several victims over a three-day period; a jury convicted him of 12 felonies and found true 11 firearm enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, 12022.53).1 In 2015, the trial court imposed a lengthy prison sentence: an indeterminate term of seven years to life with the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive determinate term of 29 years. Firearm enhancements comprised 21 years, four months of the

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. We incorporate by reference our unpublished opinion in Moss’s prior appeal, assume the reader is familiar with the factual and procedural background, and recite only those facts necessary to resolve the issues before us. (People v. Moss (Apr. 2, 2019, A146665).) Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

determinate term. Moss appealed. As relevant here, we conditionally reversed the conviction and sentence, and we remanded for resentencing to allow the court to exercise its discretion on whether to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements under amendments to sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. Resentencing occurred in May 2022. Moss urged the trial court to dismiss all but one firearm enhancement pursuant to Senate Bill No. 81 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1) which provides guidance on how trial courts are to exercise their discretion when deciding whether to dismiss sentencing enhancements under section 1385. As amended, section 1385, subdivision (c) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, “a sentencing court ‘shall dismiss’ [an] . . . enhancement ‘if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so,’ ” and that in exercising its discretion, a court must “ ‘afford great weight’ ” to specified mitigating circumstances proven by the defendant unless it finds “ ‘dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.’ ” (People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 290.) One such mitigating circumstance is that “[m]ultiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(B).) At the resentencing hearing, Moss expressed remorse for his actions, and he described his rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated. The prosecution offered two rationales for imposing multiple firearm enhancements. First, it suggested the trial court could impose multiple enhancements notwithstanding the language in section 1385, subdivision (c) because Moss’s crimes were committed over a period of several days against multiple victims. Second, the prosecution insisted that dismissing the enhancements would endanger public safety because the offenses were “serious,” the victims had “lasting trauma,” and Moss’s disciplinary record