People v. Scarano CA3

Filed 10/27/23 P. v. Scarano CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092538

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE023236)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

ANTHONY RICARDO SCARANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case returns to us on transfer with directions from our Supreme Court. The trial court placed defendant Anthony Ricardo Scarano on a five-year term of probation after he pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. He further contends his term of probation must be reduced from five years to two in accordance with the recent amendment to Penal Code section 1203.1, which was enacted while this appeal was pending.

1

In our original opinion, a different panel of this court agreed that defendant had failed to preserve his claim on the motion to suppress. The panel was divided, however, on the issue of whether the matter should be remanded to allow the trial court and the prosecution the opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement in light of Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, §2) (Assembly Bill No. 1950). The majority concluded the matter should be remanded and disposed of the appeal accordingly. The dissent asserted that defendant’s probation should simply be reduced from five years to two, without remand. Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review; that court has now directed us to reconsider the matter in light of People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961. Having done so, we agree defendant is entitled to a reduction in his term of probation without the need for remand. We shall modify the judgment to reduce the term and otherwise affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In December 2019, the People charged defendant with nine criminal acts, including possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800).1 The People also alleged defendant was previously convicted of a strike offense. We omit the factual details underlying the charges, as the facts of the charged crimes are not relevant to resolution of the issues raised on appeal. Prior to the preliminary hearing, defendant filed a motion for new counsel, which the trial court denied. Defendant also filed, then withdrew, a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Defendant also filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5, which the trial court denied.