People v. Stull CA6

Filed 6/30/23 P. v. Stull CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H048102 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1756488)

v.

JAMES CONRAD STULL,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2018, defendant James Conrad Stull pleaded no contest to second degree robbery and two other charges. Stull was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, including the upper term of five years for the robbery, and ordered to pay a booking fee of $129.75. Stull argues that under recent amendments to the sentencing laws he should be resentenced and the booking fee vacated. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, remand for resentencing, and direct the trial court to vacate any unpaid portion of the booking fee. I. Background The following factual background is taken from the preliminary hearing. In January 2017, Stull approached the cashier in a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant, pulled out a gun, which was later determined to be unloaded, and demanded “ ‘[a]ll the money.’ ” The cashier complied and gave him money from the cash register. But another employee, approaching from behind, took the money away from Stull, and the

two fought. With a customer’s help, the other employee overpowered and disarmed Stull. During the struggle, Stull bit the other employee’s left wrist. In December 2017, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an information asserting three charges against Stull: felony second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), misdemeanor brandishing a firearm (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(2)), and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (a)).1 The information also contained enhancement allegations that Stull used a firearm during the commission of the robbery, had a prior serious felony conviction, and had four prior strike convictions. In February 2018, Stull pleaded no contest to the charges and admitted the allegations. The trial court sentenced Stull in April 2019. The court noted that it had gone over the case “many many times” and “taken more time than normal to review [the] case.” While the court found aggravating circumstances, it observed that they were qualified. For example, while the offense involved a gun, the gun was not loaded, and while the defendant inflicted injury, the injury was minor. Similarly, while Stull’s prior criminal history was “bad”—he had convictions in 1976, 1982, and 1985, which had resulted in incarceration for the “majority” of his life—in light of their age the court considered the convictions “stale” (and declined to treat them as prior strike convictions). The trial court also found a number of mitigating circumstances. Stull, the court observed, had “mental health concerns” and an addiction for which he showed “significant insights,” appeared genuinely “remorseful,” was “employable,” and had a “decent background, character, and prospects.” Balancing these factors, the trial court decided that “a significant punishment should be instituted,” and since it was not imposing any enhancement for the prior strikes, the court said it was “going to select the maximum, which is five years,” for the robbery count. Initially, the trial court also planned to impose an enhancement for the