People v. Vigil CA2/4

background information is largely contained in this court’s opinions resolving Vigil’s first two appeals, which we take judicial notice of and incorporate by reference. (People v. Vigil (Dec. 17, 2020, B298543) [nonpub. opn.] (Vigil I); People v. Vigil (Jul. 28, 2022, B315445) [nonpub. opn.] (Vigil II); Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, focusing on the narrow issue presented. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) That issue is as follows. In Vigil II, we remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to apply Assembly Bill No. 518 (AB 518). (Vigil II, supra, B315445.)1 On remand, the trial court exercised its discretion to deny Vigil relief under AB 518. On appeal, Vigil now argues his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective by not seeking relief in the trial court under Senate Bill No. 81 (SB 81). Effective January 1, 2022, SB 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended Penal Code2 section 1385 by adding subdivision (c), which requires courts to strike sentencing enhancements when it is in the interest of justice to do so, while affording great weight to

AB 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess) amended section 654 by removing the requirement…