Full Opinion

Filed 10/21/26 P. v. Lockler CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B346987 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA067385 v. JAMES EARL LOCKLER, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra A. Cole, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Edward H. Schulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Kennth C. Byrne and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ James Earl Lockler again appears before us after a resentencing. He correctly argues further resentencing is warranted. Statutory citations are to the Penal Code. The issue before us is Lockler’s prior strike convictions under the Three Strikes law. (See §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Locker’s five strikes arose from an incident in 1999 at a bank in Santa Barbara County, where he held five people hostage. (See People v. Lockler (July 7, 2009, B202381, B206138) [nonpub. opn.] (Lockler).) Lockler is imprisoned for crimes he committed in 2005. In September of that year, over a period of four hours, Lockler held four women hostage at a check cashing store under the pretense of having a bomb in his backpack. He forced some of the women to undress and repeatedly threatened to blow them up and kill them in other ways. In our 2009 opinion, we ordered revisions to Lockler’s sentence and credits but affirmed his convictions for criminal threats, false imprisonment, and falsely reporting a bomb. (See Lockler, supra, B202381, B206138.) In 2025, the superior court reconsidered Lockler’s sentence after the passage of section 1172.75 and the invalidation of most prior prison term enhancements. Lockler also moved to dismiss his prior strikes. The court struck a 1-year prior prison term but kept the balance of Lockler’s sentence intact. His sentence thus became: four concurrent third-strike terms of 25 years to life, plus one consecutive term of 25 years to life, plus 5 years under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), for a total of 50 years to life plus five years. Lockler claims our Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Shaw (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1089 (Shaw) requires the superior court to resentence him as a second-strike offender. 2 Lockler is correct. The prosecution concedes the issue. Shaw held a defendant who commits a single criminal act that harms multiple victims earns one strike for purposes of Three Strikes sentencing, not multiple. (Shaw, supra, 18 Cal.5th at pp. 1093, 1099, 1102–1103.) Our earlier decision in this case confirms Lockler committed a single criminal act in 1999 against multiple victims. The 1999 incident “involved his entering a bank and holding five people hostage, over an extended time period, by pretending that he had a bomb in his backpack.” (Lockler, supra, B202381, B206138.) The parties and the superior court acknowledge all of Lockler’s strikes arise from this incident—or as the prosecution phrases it, from “the single act of threatening five hostages with a supposed bomb.” The parties further agree that we may take judicial notice of the record and files from Lockler’s past appeals, and we grant Lockler’s request. Under Shaw, all but one of Lockler’s strikes should be dismissed, and the court should resentence him as a second- strike offender. (See Shaw, supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 1103 [“the rule . . . that a trial court is required to dismiss a strike when two of a defendant’s prior strikes are the result of the same act, applies in cases in which the defendant’s single act harmed multiple victims”].) // // 3 DISPOSITION We vacate Lockler’s sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. We express no further opinion as to how or in what respect the court should resentence Lockler. WILEY, J. We concur: STRATTON, P. J. VIRAMONTES, J. 4