People v. Soto-Enriquez CA3

Filed 9/15/23 P. v. Soto-Enriquez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097478

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 06F05369)

v.

MIGUEL SOTO-ENRIQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Miguel Soto-Enriquez killed one person and seriously injured another in a gang shooting when he was 16 years old. He was originally sentenced in 2008 to life without parole for murder plus additional terms for attempted murder and enhancements. (People v. Soto-Enriquez (July 8, 2009, C059155) [nonpub. opn.].)1 Specifically, the trial court imposed 25 years to life on each of two firearm enhancements (Pen. Code,2 § 12022.53, subd. (d)) and 10 years for a gang enhancement (§ 186.22). The court also imposed a $2,000 restitution fine. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) Defendant has been incarcerated since his arrest in April 2007.

1 We affirmed the judgment on appeal.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In 2016, the trial court granted defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and resentenced him to an aggregate term of 17 years determinate plus 75 years to life. The court also modified the restitution fine to $10,000. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) In 2017, defendant filed a written request to modify the increased restitution fine, but the court denied it in October 2017. Nothing in the record suggests defendant appealed from the trial court’s October 2017 order. In August 2022, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170, arguing he was eligible for relief under a number of newly enacted statutes.3 The trial court denied the petition in November 2022, reasoning it lacked jurisdiction because defendant’s judgment was final, his sentence had been executed, and none of the new laws that defendant cited applied to defendant’s final case. Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the November 2022 order denying his petition. On appeal, defendant asks us to remand the matter, arguing the trial court had jurisdiction in 2022 to recall and resentence him because he was sentenced as a juvenile to life without parole. (§ 1170, subd. (d).) The People agree, as do we. Defendant further asks us to reverse the trial court’s order in 2016 that increased his restitution fine. We will remand the matter to enable the trial court to consider defendant’s resentencing petition under section 1170. However, we decline to address defendant’s request to reverse the trial court’s order that increased the restitution fine. DISCUSSION I Generally, a trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence a defendant once his sentence has been executed. (People v. Chamizo (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 696, 700.) However, under