People v. Licona CA4/3

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Eduardo Licona was convicted of five counts of committing lewd acts against a victim under 14 years of age, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.) On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by sentencing him under the version of the “One Strike” law1 in effect at the time of his sentencing in 2013, rather than the version in effect at the time the crimes were committed. We conclude the trial court did err, but its error was not prejudicial. Under the applicable statute, defendant was not eligible for probation in any event, and his sentence would be the same under both versions of the One Strike Law. Defendant also argues that the trial court improperly imposed an AIDS education fee, and incorrectly computed his presentence credit. The Attorney General concedes defendant is correct as to both of these arguments, and we agree. We will direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to strike the AIDS education fee and to award defendant the correct amount of presentence credits. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND…