People v. Jauregui CA2/8 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/20/21 P. v. Jauregui CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
    not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION EIGHT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                    B301440
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. KA119225)
    v.
    ROBERT JAUREGUI,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County. Juan C. Dominguez, Judge. Modified and
    remanded.
    David Zarmi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
    for Defendant and Appellant.
    Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
    Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
    Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy
    Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    __________________________
    Robert Jauregui was sentenced to prison for inflicting
    corporal injury on his child’s mother within seven years of being
    convicted of a similar offense. On appeal, Jauregui contends
    there is insufficient evidence showing his prior conviction
    occurred within seven years of his present offense. The Attorney
    General concedes the point. We modify the judgment and
    remand for resentencing.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    On September 1, 2018, Erica L.1 walked outside her house
    and saw Jauregui, who is the father of her child. Erica was
    arguing with someone on the phone, and she looked at Jauregui.
    As she started walking back towards the house, Jauregui said,
    “So what’s up now, bitch? Talk some shit.” He pulled Erica’s
    hair and struck her in the face with a closed fist several times.
    Erica was bleeding from her head, and she was transported to a
    hospital. Medical records indicated she had suffered a fractured
    nose and orbital bone, as well as a hematoma on the top of her
    head.
    Jauregui was charged with a single count of violating Penal
    Code section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1)2 (hereafter section
    273.5(f)(1)), which prohibits inflicting corporal injury on the
    parent of an offender’s child within seven years of a previous
    conviction for violating section 273.5, subdivision (a) (hereafter
    section 273.5(a)). It was further alleged that Jauregui inflicted
    1     To protect her personal privacy interests, we refer to the
    victim by her first name and last initial. (Cal. Rules of Court,
    rule 8.90(b)(4).)
    2    All further undesignated statutory references are to the
    Penal Code.
    2
    great bodily injury (GBI) upon the victim under circumstances
    involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).
    A jury found Jauregui guilty of injuring his child’s parent,
    and it found true the GBI allegation. Jauregui subsequently
    admitted suffering a 2009 conviction for violating section
    273.5(a).
    The trial court sentenced Jauregui to an aggregate term of
    eight years in prison, consisting of the midterm of four years
    under section 273.5(f)(1), plus four years for the GBI
    enhancement. Jauregui timely appealed.
    DISCUSSION
    Jauregui contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the
    trial court erred in sentencing him under section 273.5(f)(1)
    because there is insufficient evidence showing he suffered a prior
    conviction under section 273.5(a) within seven years of the
    present offense. We agree.
    Section 273.5(a) provides that any person who willfully
    inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon
    the parent of the offender’s child “shall be punished by
    imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or
    in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to
    six thousand dollars ($6,000), or by both that fine and
    imprisonment.” Section 273.5(f)(1) provides enhanced penalties
    for persons convicted of violating section 273.5(a) “for acts
    occurring within seven years of a previous conviction under
    [section 273.5(a)].” Under those circumstances, the punishment
    is “imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or
    by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or five years, or
    3
    by both imprisonment and a fine of up to ten thousand dollars
    ($10,000).” (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1).)3
    Here, the trial court sentenced Jauregui under section
    273.5(f)(1). It is undisputed, however, that his only prior section
    273.5(a) conviction occurred in 2009, which is more than seven
    years before the acts giving rise to his current offense.
    Accordingly, there is not sufficient evidence showing Jauregui
    violated section 273.5(f)(1), and he was not subject to the
    enhanced penalties found in that subdivision.
    Although there is insufficient evidence to support a
    conviction and sentencing under section 273.5(f)(1), Jauregui
    concedes that the jury found he violated section 273.5(a).
    The parties agree, as do we, that the proper disposition is to
    modify the judgment to reflect that Jauregui was convicted of
    violating section 273.5(a), rather than section 273.5(f)(1), and
    then remand the case for resentencing. (See § 1260 [an appellate
    court may “modify a judgment . . . or reduce the degree of the
    offense . . . [and] remand the cause to the trial court for such
    further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances”].)
    3      The parties conceptualize the relationship between section
    273.5(a) and section 273.5(f)(1) differently. Jauregui considers
    section 273.5(f)(1) to be an alternative sentencing scheme for
    violations of section 273.5(a). (See People v. Cross (2015) 
    61 Cal.4th 164
    , 178.) The Attorney General, in contrast, considers
    section 273.5(a) to be a lesser included offense of section
    273.5(f)(1). To the extent there are distinctions between these
    conceptions, they are irrelevant for our purposes.
    4
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is modified to reflect that Jauregui was
    convicted of violating section 273.5(a). The matter is remanded
    for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
    BIGELOW, P. J.
    We Concur:
    GRIMES, J.
    WILEY, J.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B301440

Filed Date: 1/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/20/2021