People v. Rubio CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike two of his prior prison term enhancements, because he successfully petitioned to have them reduced to misdemeanors. He argues that because his prior felony convictions have become misdemeanors “for all purposes” (§ 1170.18, subd. (k)), they can no longer be used to support a sentencing enhancement for prior felony convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). This issue is currently pending before our Supreme Court. (People v. Valenzuela (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 692, review granted Mar. 30, 2016, S232900.) While awaiting the high court’s guidance, we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit.

Initially, we note that although defendant claims the underlying convictions for two of his prior prison term enhancements were redesignated as misdemeanors, the record reflects that the two underlying convictions were separate cases, sentenced and served concurrently. That is, they were part of the same prior prison term and represent only one prior prison term enhancement.

Section 1170.18 provides, inter alia, that persons who have completed felony sentences for offenses that would now be misdemeanors under…