People v. Barraza CA2/8

Filed 9/1/23 P. v. Barraza CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B314798

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA144705) v.

VINCENT BARRAZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Sean D. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.

Jerome J. Haig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

In November 2017, defendant and appellant Vincent Barraza brandished a semiautomatic handgun from the front yard of his home, fired it at a nearby elementary school, at two of his neighbors, and at four deputy sheriffs who arrived on the scene. (People v. Barraza (Jan. 10, 2020; B291988) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant then fled back inside his home and a standoff ensued that resulted in the elementary school being placed on lockdown. After deputies fired flash bang devices into the home, defendant surrendered. (Ibid.) A jury convicted defendant of four counts of assault with a firearm on a police officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (d)(1)), two counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), two counts of shooting at an occupied dwelling (§ 246), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and the jury found true various firearm enhancements pursuant to section 12022.53. (People v. Barraza, supra, B291988.) In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that in 1997, he suffered a felony conviction for attempted robbery which qualified as a strike. Before sentencing defendant, the court denied his motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to strike the 1997 conviction, finding defendant had a “nonstop life of lawlessness” and did not fall outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law. The court sentenced defendant to 53 years in prison. (People v. Barraza, supra, B291988.) While defendant’s direct appeal was pending, Senate Bill 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) went into effect, giving trial courts discretion to strike a five-year enhancement for a prior felony conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)—a previously mandatory sentencing enhancement. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, § 1.)