People v. Bonilla CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Assembly Bill No. 518 amends section 654 by removing the requirement that a defendant shall be punished under the provision providing for the longest term of imprisonment. It grants the trial court discretion to impose punishment under any of the applicable provisions. (People v. Mendoza (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 843, 862 [pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 518, trial court has discretion to select which offense is punishable].) Bonilla is entitled to the benefit of Assembly Bill No. 518, permitting the trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion pursuant to section 654. (See also In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740.)

3 At sentencing, the trial judge stated that he was “struggling . . . whether the midterm or the high term [for count 1] is appropriate.” He referred to the severity of Green’s injuries, Bonilla’s criminal history (a prior strike not alleged), Bonilla’s mental illness, and Bonilla’s age (28). He then decided upon a midterm sentence for count 1. Under these circumstances, we cannot determine with a degree of certainty that a remand would be futile. Upon remand, the trial court shall consider its discretion to impose an eight-year sentence for count 4 in lieu…