People v. Martinez

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BERNARDO MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

F086794

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

October 7, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No DF008057B. Elizabet Rodriguez, Judge.

Matthew J. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Kari Mueller, and Joseph Penney Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SNAUFFER, J.

Defendant Bernardo Martinez was convicted and sentenced in three separate cases, the most recent of which occurred in Imperial County. In the present case, out of Kern County, the sentence included a prior prison term enhancement. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75,^[1] the trial court in this case held a resentencing hearing for Martinez on August 25, 2023. The trial court resentenced Martinez in the present case only.

We reviewed the record, and it appeared the Kern County Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to resentence Martinez. Instead, it appeared that the Imperial County Superior Court should have been the court to resentence Martinez. Accordingly, we directed the parties "to submit supplemental briefing to address whether the trial court in this case had jurisdiction to resentence Martinez or whether the Imperial County Superior Court should have resentenced him."

The parties filed their supplemental briefs. The People agree that the matter should be heard by the Imperial County Superior Court. Martinez agrees that if the Imperial County Superior Court imposed an aggregate term, it would have been the proper court to resentence him. However, he argues that the Kern County Superior Court retained jurisdiction because the Imperial County Superior Court erroneously failed to impose a single aggregate term for the in-prison offenses.

While Martinez argues that the Imperial County Superior Court erred, we were not provided with the judgment or the sentencing hearing transcript from the Imperial County case. This is so even though the judgment was at issue below. Thus, we cannot determine whether the Imperial County Superior Court erred. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence imposed on August 25, 2023, and remand the matter to the Kern County Superior Court to determine, in the first instance, whether it has jurisdiction to resentence Martinez.^[2]

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY^[3]

In 2005, Martinez was sentenced to an aggregate term of 44 years, four months, based on multiple felony convictions in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BA269182 ("2005 Case"). On appeal, the sentence was modified to 39 years, four months. (People v. Martinez (Feb. 21, 2006, B185352) [nonpub. opn.].)

While serving the sentence in the 2005 Case, Martinez was charged and pled no contest to possessing methamphetamine while in prison (§ 4573.6) in the present case. In 2008, Martinez was sentenced to a consecutive term of eight years on the charge of possessing methamphetamine while in prison, plus an additional two years based on two prior prison term enhancements pursuant to section 667.5, former subdivision (b) ("2008 Case").

While still in prison, Martinez was charged and convicted in Imperial County Superior Court case No. JCF27554 of assault with a deadly weapon by a prisoner (§ 4501). In 2011, Martinez was sentenced to a consecutive prison term of four years ("2011 Case").^[4]

On April 7, 2023, Martinez filed a pro per motion for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. Counsel was appointed for defendant, and on July 28, 2023, counsel filed a motion for resentencing and a resentencing memorandum.

In the motion, Martinez argued that, pursuant to section 1172.75, his prior prison term enhancements were legally invalid. Martinez also argued that because his three separate cases all contributed to one aggregate term, the trial court should resentence him not just in this case, but in the 2005 Case and 2011 Case as well. Martinez argued that, in the 2005 Case, the prior strike conviction allegation (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)) and the firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) should be dismissed. As to the sentence in this case, Martinez argued that the two prior prison term enhancements should be dismissed, that the prior strike allegations should be dismissed, and that no more than the middle term should be imposed on his conviction for possessing methamphetamine while in prison. Finally, Martinez argued that, in the 2011 Case, the strike prior allegations should be dismissed and that one-third the middle term should be imposed on the assault with a deadly weapon by a prisoner conviction.

The trial court held the resentencing hearing on August 25, 2023. The trial court resentenced Martinez in this case only. The trial court denied Martinez's request to dismiss the strike prior allegation. However, it dismissed the prior prison term enhancements and imposed the middle term of six years (three years, doubled due to the strike prior allegation), to be served fully consecutive to the sentence in the 2005 Case.

On that same day, Martinez timely filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. Applicable law

Under section 1172.75, "[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid." (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) This section required the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to "identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) and [to] provide the name of each person, along with the person's date of birth and the relevant case number or docket number, to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement." (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) Once the sentencing court has confirmed that a defendant's current judgment includes a prior prison term enhancement that is now legally invalid, it "shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant." (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).)

"The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. [Citations.] '"' "As in any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task here is to determine the Legislature's intent so as to effectuate the law's purpose. [Citation.] We begin by examining the statute's words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning." '"' [Citation.]' "[W]e look to 'the entire substance of the statute ... in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision .... [Citation.]' [Citation.] That is, we construe the words in question' "in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute ....'" '" (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961.) Where the language supports more than one reasonable construction, we may look to extrinsic aids, including the legislative history, for additional guidance. (People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100, 1105-1106.)

II. Analysis

The issue before us is whether the Kern County Superior Court had jurisdiction to resentence Martinez.^[5] "In general,' "once a judgment is rendered and execution of the sentence has begun, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence." '" (Cota, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 329.) One exception to this general rule, which the Kern County Superior Court relied upon, is section 1172.75. Pursuant to this section, "the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement" has jurisdiction to resentence a defendant. (§ 1172.75, subds. (c), (d).) Initially, we must determine whether the Kern County Superior Court or the Imperial County Superior Court is the "sentencing court."^[6]

To answer this question, we must determine whether Martinez is serving one aggregate term for the in-prison offenses. In both the 2008 Case and the 2011 Case, Martinez committed a felony while in prison, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms. Accordingly, section 1170.1, subdivision (c), applies.

This section states: "In the case of any person convicted of one or more felonies committed while the person is confined in the state prison or is subject to reimprisonment for escape from custody and the law either requires the terms to be served consecutively or the court imposes consecutive terms, the term of imprisonment for all the convictions that the person is required to serve consecutively shall commence from the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison. If the new offenses are consecutive with each other, the principal and subordinate terms shall be calculated as provided in subdivision (a). This subdivision shall be applicable in cases of convictions of more than one offense in the same or different proceedings." (§ 1170.1, subd. (c).)

Courts have held, and we agree, that when an individual commits multiple crimes in prison while serving a sentence for a crime that occurred outside of prison, this section requires imposition of a single aggregate term for the in-prison offenses. (People v. Venegas (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1743; White, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 870.) This aggregate term is calculated "as provided in [section 1170.1,] subdivision (a)." (§ 1170.1 subd. (c); White, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 870.) As relevant here, California Rules of Court, rule 4.452(a) provides: "If a determinate sentence is imposed under section 1170.1[, subdivision] (a) consecutive to one or more determinate sentences...