People v. Woods CA1/1

Filed 1/11/24 P. v. Woods CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166996 v. VIRGIL WOODS, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. 21005009) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Virgil Woods appeals from his conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene of an injury accident, misdemeanor hit-and- run driving involving property damage, reckless driving, and making a false report of a crime. After the jury returned their verdicts on the underlying substantive offenses, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code,2 § 667, subd. (a)(1)) for battery with infliction of serious bodily injury under section 243, subdivision (d) (section 243(d)) which qualified as a strike under the “Three

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise

indicated.

Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)). At sentencing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the prior strike and serious felony findings in the interests of justice under section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding the prior strike and serious felony allegations true because his prior conviction for battery with serious bodily injury in violation of section 243(d) did not qualify as a serious or violent felony under California law. The Attorney General agrees, as do we. Battery is a serious felony and a strike when the defendant inflicts great bodily injury. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b), 667.5, subd. (c)(8), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) Here, however, serious bodily injury, not great bodily injury, was an element of defendant’s prior conviction. (§ 243(d) [“When a battery is committed against any person and serious bodily injury is inflicted on the person, the battery is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment . . . for two, three, or four years.” (italics added)].) As our Supreme Court recently explained: “[N]ot all jury findings of serious bodily injury necessarily entail a finding of great bodily injury.” (In re Cabrera (2023) 14 Cal.5th 476, 488 (Cabrera).) In Cabrera, the jury found the defendant guilty of battery with serious bodily injury but deadlocked on charged allegations of infliction of great bodily injury. (Id. at pp. 480, 482, 489.) Nonetheless, the trial court imposed a five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) after concluding the defendant’s felonies were serious because there was great bodily injury. (Cabrera, at pp. 482, 488.) The California Supreme Court rejected the premise that serious bodily injury and great bodily injury were equivalent as a matter of law. Rather, because