Filed 10/30/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A153015 v. THOMAS JOHN GRZYMSKI, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. CR1704050, Defendant and Appellant. CR1500452, CR1303138B) In 2013, defendant Thomas Grzymski pleaded guilty to possession of heroin for sale and admitted to two sentencing enhancements under Health and Safety Code1 section 11370.2 based on previous convictions for drug-related crimes. The trial court imposed a “split sentence” of 10 years, under which part of the total term would be served in county jail and the remainder would be served on mandatory supervision. (See Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5).) Over the next four years, Grzymski repeatedly violated the terms of his mandatory supervision. In a second prosecution in 2015, he admitted to transportation of methamphetamine and two additional section 11370.2 sentencing enhancements. The trial court imposed a split sentence of 10 years to run concurrent to the sentence in the first case. And in a third prosecution, which led to the November 2017 order from which Grzymski now appeals, the court sentenced him to 16 months in prison on weapons- related offenses, terminated mandatory supervision in the first two cases, and ordered that he serve the balance of the 10-year split sentences in prison. 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted. 1 Meanwhile, Senate Bill No. 180 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) was enacted in October 2017 and went into effect on January 1, 2018. The bill limited the reach of section 11370.2 by authorizing sentencing enhancements only for prior convictions that, unlike Grzymski’s, involved using a minor to commit drug-related crimes. Grzymski was sentenced to a total of six years as a result of the section 11370.2 sentencing enhancements. On appeal, he contends that these enhancements must be reversed. The parties agree that Senate Bill No. 180 is retroactive, meaning that it applies to judgments that were not final when it took effect, under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 742 (Estrada). (See People v. McKenzie (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1207, 1213 (McKenzie).) They disagree, however, as to when the two split sentences at issue became final judgments for purposes of determining whether the new law applies here. We hold that an unappealed split sentence is final within the meaning of Estrada 60 days after it is imposed. Because Grzymski did not appeal from the 2013 or 2015 split sentences, they have been final for years. As a result, he is not entitled to relief under Senate Bill No. 180, and we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The relevant procedural history spans several years and involves three cases. In September 2013, Grzymski was charged in case no. CR1303138B with felony counts of possession of heroin for sale, possession of methamphetamine for sale, and possession of metal knuckles, and a misdemeanor count of possession of a smoking device.2 In connection with the two drug-possession counts, sentencing enhancements were alleged ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals