People v. Young CA1/4

Filed 3/29/24 P. v. Young CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168187 v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. CHARLES DAVIS YOUNG, No. 05001309251) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Charles Davis Young was convicted by jury of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)),2 assault with a deadly weapon (a cane) (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and false imprisonment (§ 237, subd. (a)), as well as an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court found prior conviction allegations to be true and sentenced Young to a prison term of 45 years to life. In an unpublished opinion otherwise affirming the convictions, we agreed with Young that the sentence on the assault conviction should have been stayed under section

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no

substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

654, and remanded for resentencing. (People v. Young (Jan. 3, 2019, A144481) [nonpub. opn.] (Young I).) In resentencing Young, the court imposed the upper term of six years for the first degree residential burglary conviction, and doubled it to twelve years based upon a prior strike (dated October 2, 2003 for § 192, subd. (a), manslaughter). (People v. Young (Mar. 10, 2021, A159701) [nonpub. opn.] (Young II).)3 The court imposed another three years, consecutive, for the enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a). (Young II, supra, A159701.) The sentences for the assault and false imprisonment convictions were stayed pursuant to section 654. (Young II, supra, A159701.) Two prior convictions (for a robbery and another first degree burglary) brought five years each, adding another ten years under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). (Young II, supra, A159701.) At the resentencing proceeding, Young’s counsel pointed out to the court that it now had discretion to strike those prior convictions, but the court declined to do so, while acknowledging it could. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the aggregate determinate sentence of 25 years imposed in the resentencing proceedings. (Ibid.) Young subsequently filed a petition for recall of his sentence and resentencing under former section 1171 (since renumbered to section 1172.7 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 11)) and former section 1171.1 (since renumbered to section 1172.75 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12)). These statutes invalidate, respectively, any sentencing enhancement imposed (1) under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 for having suffered a prior conviction for specified drug offenses (section 1172.7), and (2) under section 667.5,