People v. Zaldana CA2/8

Filed 6/11/24 P. v. Zaldana CA2/8 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B295959

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA468653) v.

BEDAVID ZALDANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen, Scott A. Taryle and Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

This is an opinion on remand from the California Supreme Court. On December 17, 2019, we reversed the sentence imposed on defendant Bedavid Zaldana upon his conviction of one count of oral copulation or sexual penetration, three counts of lewd acts and two count of forcible lewd acts, all against children under the age of 14. We found the sentence violated the One Strike law. The One Strike law, codified in Penal Code section 667.611, is an alternative, harsher sentencing scheme of either 15 years to life or 25 years to life in prison for certain enumerated sex offenses accompanied by additional specified factual findings. (§ 667.61.) Section 667.61, subdivision (b) mandates a 15 years to life term for an offense involving multiple victims “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (a), (j), (l), or (m).” One of those identified exceptions—subdivision (j)—requires a longer term of 25 years to life when the victim is a child under the age of 14. The trial court had sentenced Zaldana to five consecutive prison terms of 15 years to life and one stayed term of 15 years to life, for an aggregate sentence of 75 years to life. Five of the six counts fell within the One Strike law. We concluded Zaldana’s sentence was unauthorized under section 667.61 because subdivision (j)(2) mandated the longer indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life for an offense falling within the One Strike law when the victim is under the age of 14. We held the trial court was required to impose five terms of 25 years to life. As relevant to this opinion on remand, we also found that the Information gave Zaldana constitutionally sufficient notice of this longer possible sentence. We returned the matter to the trial court for imposition of the higher terms. (People v. Zaldana (Dec. 17, 2019, B295959) [nonpub. opn.].)