Filed 3/25/21 P. v. Contreras CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D076180 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD236438) LEONEL CONTRERAS et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed, remanded with directions. Nancy J. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Leonel Contreras. Daniel J. Kessler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant William S. Rodriguez. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent. In 2011, Leonel Contreras and William S. Rodriguez, both 16 at the time, kidnapped a 15-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl and dragged them into a secluded area where they took turns brutally raping and sodomizing the girls for over a half hour. The following year, separate juries convicted them of various crimes related to the incident. Thereafter, Contreras was sentenced to 50 years to life plus 8 years and Rodriguez to 50 years to life. The trial court also imposed restitution fines and various fees. While their appeals of the convictions were pending, Proposition 57 was passed by the electorate. The new law significantly modified the procedure used to determine if juvenile defendants can be charged as adults. In People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 (Lara), the California Supreme Court ruled the changes applied retroactively to all non-final cases. After this court and the Supreme Court affirmed Contreras’s and Rodriguez’s convictions and overturned their sentences as violative of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the case was remanded. Thereafter, the same trial court that presided over the criminal trial conducted an extensive fitness hearing in accordance with Lara to determine if Contreras or Rodriguez should be placed under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or re-sentenced in criminal court. The court ruled that the prosecution had carried its burden to prove Contreras and Rodriguez were not suitable for juvenile treatment. The court resentenced Contreras to 25 years to life plus four years, and imposed the same fines and fees previously imposed. The court resentenced Rodriguez to 25 years to life, and stayed all fines and fees pending a hearing on Rodriguez’s ability to pay. Contreras and Rodriguez now challenge those orders. Contreras asserts it was reversible error for the criminal division, and not the juvenile 2 division, of the superior court to determine his fitness. He also contends the court prejudicially erred by failing to explain how it weighed the five criteria Proposition 57 required the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals