People v. Madrigal CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 4, 2022C091157California656 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mauro, J.

BACKGROUND

The facts of defendant’s underlying crimes are not relevant to this appeal, and therefore we shall not discuss them. In July 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted an enhancement allegation regarding use of a firearm in the commission of a felony (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) Defendant also admitted a prior prison term enhancement allegation under former section 667.5, subdivision (b). As part of the plea bargain, the People dismissed charges against defendant for possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun (§ 33215). The People and defendant also agreed that the sentence on the firearm enhancement would be for the midterm of four years. The trial court sentenced defendant to the aggravated term of four years for assault with a deadly weapon, plus the midterm of four years for the use of a firearm, and an additional year for the prior prison term.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends, and the People agree, that recently enacted Senate Bill 136, which limits the prior offenses that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.