People v. Yin CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Dec 12, 2023 No. G061774Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that because the defendant's judgment was vacated via habeas corpus and the case was pending for resentencing when Assembly Bill No. 333 took effect, the defendant is entitled to the retroactive benefits of the new gang statute.

Issues

Whether a defendant whose conviction was vacated on habeas corpus and who was awaiting resentencing is entitled to the retroactive benefits of Assembly Bill No. 333.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss gang-related charges and enhancements following the enactment of AB 333.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Yin was therefore entitled to any benefit arising from the statute (see In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745 (Estrada)) while the matter was pending for retrial and resentencing after habeas relief.”

“The judgment is reversed; Yin’s sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including retrial of the gang allegations against Yin at the prosecutor’s discretion.”

Filed 12/12/23 P. v. Yin CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, G061774 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11CF2822) v. OPINION SARITH YIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

1 The parties agree that changes to Penal Code section 186.22 enacted by Assembly Bill No. 333 (Stats. 2021, ch. 699, §§ 1-4, eff. Jan. 1, 2022 (AB 333)); see People v. E.H. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 467 (E.H.)) require reversal after a jury convicted Sarith Yin of murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and also found certain gang allegations to be true, including on related counts. The parties further agree that, on remand, the prosecutor may retry Yin on the gang murder offense and all gang-related allegations. We accept the parties’ stipulation to reverse and remand because Yin’s murder conviction was vacated under People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 (Chiu) after habeas review in this court, and thus the criminal proceedings against him were not yet final at the time AB 333 took effect. Yin was therefore entitled to any benefit arising from the statute (see In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745 (Estrada)) while the matter was pending for retrial and resentencing after habeas relief. This period extended to and included the trial court’s decision to reenter Yin’s murder conviction upon his guilty plea. We therefore reverse the judgment which denied him the benefits of AB 333, and remand for further proceedings, including retrial at the prosecutor’s election on all gang-related allegations against Yin.

People v. Yin CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GOETHALS, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.

AI Brief