People v. Wanzo, 031519 CAAPP1, A152938
|Opinion Judge:||SIMONS, ACTING P.J.|
|Party Name:||THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WARREN LEE WANZO, Defendant and Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||We concur. NEEDHAM, J., BURNS, J.|
|Case Date:||March 15, 2019|
|Court:||California Court of Appeals|
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-170471-7
SIMONS, ACTING P.J.
Warren Lee Wanzo challenges two aspects of the sentence imposed following his conviction for robbery. We remand the sentencing issues to the trial court.
A March 2017 information charged appellant with one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).1 The information also alleged four prior convictions as strike offenses (§ 667, subds. (d) & (e), § 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)); serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and, as to three of the prior convictions, violent felony convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (a)). Two additional prior convictions were alleged as prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). A jury subsequently found appellant guilty on the robbery count.2 In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found all of the prior conviction allegations true.
In September 2017, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate prison term of 45 years to life. The sentence consisted of a 25-year-to-life term on the robbery count and consecutive five-year terms for each of the four prior serious felony enhancements. The trial court imposed and stayed sentences on the two prison priors.
I. Senate Bill No. 1393
Appellant argues the sentences on the four prior serious felony enhancements should be remanded pursuant to new legislation, Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (hereafter, S.B. 1393). We agree.
“On September 30, 2018, the Governor signed S.B. 1393 which, effective January 1, 2019, amend[ed former] sections [667, subdivision (a) and 1385, subdivision (b)] to allow a court to exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss a prior serious felony conviction for sentencing purposes. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, §§ 1-2.)” (People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 971.) Under the version of these statutes in effect at the time of appellant's sentencing, “the court [was] required to impose a five-year consecutive term...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP