People v. Uribe CA5

Filed 11/12/26 P. v. Uribe CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F089722 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CF96555873) v. ALFONSO URIBE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James Kelley, Judge. Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Hill, P. J., Snauffer, J. and Sandhu, J.  INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Alfonso Uribe (defendant) was convicted of being a violent felon in possession of a firearm, with two prior strike convictions and two prior prison term enhancements. He was sentenced to the third strike term of 25 years to life with two years for prior prison term enhancements. In 2025, the trial court recalled defendant’s sentence pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75, dismissed the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements, and conducted a full resentencing hearing. The court denied defendant’s request to dismiss one or both prior strike convictions and sentenced him to 25 years to life. On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. FACTS2 “On August 17, 1995, officers served a search warrant at an apartment in Fresno. When officers entered, they found [I.G.] in the bathroom and defendant on a ladder in [I.G.]’s bedroom, attempting to climb out a window. Officers took defendant into custody and removed him from the scene. “[I.G.] was detained in the kitchen. Asked by a parole officer whether there were any guns in the apartment, [I.G.] stated either that when officers entered, defendant had been sitting on the couch, holding a small handgun, or that defendant had placed 1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code. 2 The instant appellate record includes this court’s opinions in defendant’s two prior appeals: People v. Uribe (Feb. 11, 1999, F028340) [nonpub. opn.] (Uribe I), which affirmed the judgment on appeal; and People v. Uribe (Apr. 24, 2014, F067245) [nonpub. opn.] (Uribe II), which affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s section 1170.126 petition for recall and resentencing. The following factual statement is from Uribe II. 2. something under the couch where he was sitting. A handgun was found under a couch cushion where [I.G.] said defendant had been seated. “In [I.G.]’s bedroom, officers found men’s clothing and paperwork belonging to defendant. [I.G.] said defendant had been living with her for two weeks. [I.G.] also said the weapons found in the apartment belonged to defendant. “One to two hours after officers arrived at the apartment, the telephone rang. [I.G.] was allowed to answer it while an officer listened on another telephone. The officer heard defendant ask [I.G.] whether anyone was listening. Defendant told [I.G.] that if questioned, she should not say anything. He asked her twice if she knew what time it was—a phrase that is an implied threat among parolees—and told her to remember what happened to a female informant. “At trial, [I.G.] testified all the weapons found in the apartment belonged to her. She denied defendant had been staying with her. She claimed she told the officers the gun found in the apartment belonged to her, but changed her story and said the gun was defendant’s after, she claimed, she had been threatened with being arrested for child endangerment.” PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 1, 1996, a first amended information was filed in Fresno County Superior Court charging defendant with violating former section 12021.1, subdivision (a), being a violent felon in possession of a firearm, a Beretta .25-caliber handgun, and that he had two prior strike convictions and four prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).3 On April 7, 1997, after a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss two of 3 “Former section 12021.1[, subdivision ](a) was repealed and reenacted as section 29900, subdivision (a)(1) without substantive change.” (People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 734, fn. 2.) 3. the prior prison term enhancements, and found defendant had two prior strike convictions and two prior prison term enhancements. On May 9, 1997, defendant was sentenced to the third strike term of 25 years to life with two years for the prior prison term enhancements. In Uribe I, this court affirmed the judgment on appeal. Section 1170.126 Petition On December 11, 2012, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing of his indeterminate third strike term of 25 years to life pursuant to section 1170.126.4 On May 10, 2013, the trial court found he was statutorily ineligible for resentencing and denied the petition. On appeal, this court held in Uribe II that defendant was not automatically disqualified for recall and resentencing under section 1170.126 simply because of his conviction for violating former section 12021.1, subdivision (a). However, we concluded the record of conviction established he was ineligible for resentencing because he was “armed” during the commission of the offense, and disqualifying factors need not be pleaded and proved before a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. (§ 1170.126, subd. (e)). SECTION 1172.75 RECALL AND RESENTENCING In 2024, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified defendant as a person who was serving a prison term that included prior prison term enhancements that were no longer valid under section 1172.75. 4 “Section 1170.126 allows a person presently serving a three strikes sentence for a felony that is neither serious nor violent to petition for resentencing as a second strike offender subject to certain disqualifying exceptions …. [Citation.] If the prisoner is not subject to one of the disqualifying factors, then the trial court shall resentence him under the two strikes provision ‘unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.’ ” (People v. Williams (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1057, 1061.) 4. The Parties’ Arguments On April 2, 2025, after appointment of counsel and briefing by the parties, the trial court conducted a hearing, recalled defendant’s sentence, and conducted a full resentencing hearing pursuant to section 1172.75. Defendant argued the trial court must dismiss one or both of his prior strike convictions and impose a second strike determinate term. Defendant asserted he was only 19 years old when he committed the two prior strike offenses, and he had since developed insight that would make recidivism less likely. Defendant submitted documents that showed he completed programs in prison about life skills, anger management, drug rehabilitation, and mental health, and he dropped out of a gang in 2002. Defendant acknowledged he had convictions for possession of a weapon in prison, but he needed to defend himself after he dropped out of the gang and he did not engage in any violence. At the hearing, defendant personally addressed the trial court and said he had served 27 years in prison and changed his life. Defendant admitted he committed offenses in prison but he made bad decisions when he was placed in a prison yard with certain gang members. He had problems with them, he felt unsafe, and he made a weapon out of plastic and told the guards about it so he would be removed from that yard. Defendant said he learned his lesson. Defendant also addressed his original conviction for being a violent felon in possession of a firearm, and complained his fingerprints were not found on the firearm. The prosecutor argued defendant’s third strike term should not be reduced, and defendant’s claims about the validity of his original conviction and whether his fingerprints were on the gun showed he continued to minimize his conduct. The prosecutor introduced certified copies of records for defendant’s prior convictions, and stated his criminal history began at the age of 16. The prosecutor questioned defendant’s claim that he had changed and asked when that happened, because he had multiple 5. convictions in prison after he was sentenced to the third strike term. He was convicted of possession of a weapon by a prisoner in 2010 (§ 4502); possession of drugs/alcohol in prison in 2011 (§ 4573.6); and possession of a weapon by a prisoner in 2021 and 2024 (§ 4502, subd. (b)). The Trial Court’s Ruling The trial court dismissed two prior prison term enhancements, acknowledged that it was conducting a full resentencing hearing, and declined to dismiss one or both of the two prior strike convictions. “[D]efendant’s criminal history goes back to the age of 14 and it continued for 37 years, up to the 2024 conviction. Actually, 39 years of criminal conduct. I mean, he started off small, of course, with drug offenses. And then he was committed to CYA at some point, and then he had the juvenile probation violations. And then dishonorable discharge ultimately after some battery, burglary and theft offenses. As an adult, it started with joyriding and escalated from there. Auto theft, assault with a deadly [weapon] with GBI, robbery, escape, parole violations. It goes on. And then once he was incarcerated, he continued to pick up offenses, as was pointed out, 2010, 2011, 2021, and 2024. [¶] I’m assuming there would have been some parole eligibility prior to this had those other things not occurred.” Defense counsel stated defendant had never been in front of a parole board because he waived the hearings. The trial court replied: “Well, he’s going to have to maintain a record of crime-free conduct in order to get that, but I’m not inclined, based on the record before me, to strike the prior strikes.” The trial court again sentenced defendant to the third strike term of 25 years to life. The court suspended any remaining fines and fees but ordered victim restitution to remain if previously imposed. On April 25, 2025, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION As noted above, defendant’s counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief also included counsel’s declaration indicating that defendant was advised he could file his 6. own brief with this court. By letter on August 7, 2026, we invited defendant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so. Correction of Abstract of Judgment As noted above, defendant was charged with violating former section 12021.1, subdivision (a), and convicted of that offense on April 7, 1997. On May 9, 1997, he was sentenced to 25 years to life with two years for the prior prison term enhancements. On May 14, 1997, the abstract of judgment was filed that correctly stated his aggregate sentence was two years plus 25 years to life, but erroneously stated he was convicted of violating former section “12021[, subdivision ](a)(1)” for “poss/control a fire arm [sic].” (Unnecessary capitalization omitted.) As this court explained in Uribe II, the abstract of judgment filed after his conviction and original sentencing showed “defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of former section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) (now § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). It is apparent from defendant’s [section 1170.126] petition for recall of sentence, the first amended information, and the appellate opinion, that this statutory designation is in error.” Also as explained above, on April 2, 2025, the trial court conducted the recall and resentencing hearing pursuant to section 1172.75, dismissed the two prior prison term enhancements, and resentenced him to the third strike term of 25 years to life. On the same day, the new abstract of judgment was filed that again erroneously stated defendant was convicted of violating former section “12021[, subdivision ](a)(1)” for “poss/control a firearm [sic]” (unnecessary capitalization omitted), with the additional error that his conviction occurred on April 9, 1997, and it correctly stated he was resentenced to 25 years to life on April 2, 2025. “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts … that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment 7. that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) We direct the trial court to file a corrected abstract of judgment after the resentencing hearing to state that on April 7, 1997, defendant was convicted of violating former section 12021.1, subdivision (a), violent felon in possession of a firearm, and on April 2, 2025, he was resentenced to 25 years to life. (See, e.g., People v. Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 188; People v. Saavedra (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 605, 616.) After independent review of the record, we find that no other reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. DISPOSITION The Fresno County Superior Court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment to show that on April 7, 1997, defendant was convicted of violating former section 12021.1, subdivision (a), violent felon in possession of a firearm, and on April 2, 2025, he was resentenced to 25 years to life. The clerk of the Fresno County Superior Court shall forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As corrected, the judgment is affirmed in all other respects. 8.