People v. Crowley CA2/6

Filed 5/14/24 P. v. Crowley CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B326406 (Super. Ct. No. 2008033525 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

DANIEL CROWLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Crowley appeals from a Penal Code1 section 1172.1 resentencing. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it failed to properly consider mitigating circumstances requiring it to dismiss enhancements under section 1385. We disagree because the court found dismissal would endanger public safety. We will affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 22, 2009, a jury convicted appellant of four counts of second degree robbery (§ 211) and found true two allegations that appellant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, i.e., a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Jury and court findings also established that appellant had suffered three prior convictions qualifying as both strikes and serious felony prior convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (c)(1), (e)(2), 1170.12, subds. (a)(2), (c)(2)). On February 23, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to a state prison term of 100 years to life, plus 16 years. As to the indeterminate portion of the sentence, the court imposed terms of 25-years to life for each of the four robbery convictions. As to the determinate portion, the court imposed three five-year terms for each of the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) serious felony prior enhancements, plus one year for the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) weapon enhancement. We affirmed the judgment. (People v. Crowley (Apr. 19, 2011, B222972) [nonpub. opn.].) In a February 18, 2021 letter, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended the trial court recall and resentence appellant pursuant to former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1).2 After holding a hearing, the court recalled appellant’s sentence. The court struck two of the three strike priors. The court resentenced appellant to a determinate term of 32 years: (1) the upper term for the robbery in count 1, doubled pursuant to the remaining