People v. Mares CA4/3

Filed 3/8/24 P. v. Mares 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061917

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13CF0191)

LAWRENCE ALBERT MARES, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Nancy J. King, 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, Steve Oetting and Evan Stele, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Lawrence Mares held up a man at gunpoint, told him to enter a nearby motel room, and when the victim instead ran away, Mares shot him in the back. This was apparently a dispute over drug money. Remarkably, the victim survived. In 2015, Mares was convicted of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. 1 (a), 664, subd. (a); count 1), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count 2), and assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (c); count 3). With regard to count 1, the jury found it to be true that Mares intentionally and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The court sentenced defendant to the low term of three years for assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, a consecutive life term for premeditated attempted murder, and a consecutive 25-years-to-life term for the firearm enhancement associated with the attempted murder conviction. We affirmed the judgment. (People v. Mares (Mar. 6, 2018, G053959) [nonpub. opn.].) Mares appealed to the California Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this court with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of the then-recently passed Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2), which amended section 12022.53 so that the 25-years-to-life enhancement was no longer mandatory but instead could be stricken in the interest of justice. (See § 12022.53, subd. (h) [“The court may, in the interest of justice pursuant to Section 1385 and at the time of sentencing, strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by this section. The authority provided by this subdivision applies to any resentencing that may occur pursuant to any other law”].) In a subsequent opinion, we remanded to the trial court, stating, “The matter is remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 12022.53, subdivision (h).” (People v. Mares (July 26, 2018, G053959) [nonpub. opn.].)