Filed 9/9/21 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D076919 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF002040) ALICIA HARO, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed; remanded for resentencing. Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steven T. Oetting and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts III.A–B and D. I. INTRODUCTION A jury convicted defendant Alicia Haro of multiple drug related offenses after she crossed into the United States from Mexico on three occasions while transporting large amounts of methamphetamine hidden in her vehicle. She was sentenced to 21 years in prison. On appeal, Haro raises four claims. First, Haro contends that the trial court erred in allowing a drug trafficking expert to testify that he did not believe that a drug organization would entrust large quantities of valuable drugs to an individual who had no knowledge of what they were transporting. Second, Haro contends that the trial court erred when it declined to disclose private juror information after defense counsel asserted that an alternate juror approached her following the reading of the verdict and told her that some of the jurors had discussed the case before deliberations began. Third, Haro contends that the trial court erred when it aggregated two 10-kilogram enhancements that had been pled and proven with respect to separate charged counts of conspiracy and instead imposed the sentence for a single 20-kilogram weight enhancement, given that the court dismissed one of the conspiracy counts after the jury determined that the two charged conspiracies were in fact part of a single conspiracy. Finally, Haro contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that she was ineligible for a split sentence because of her immigration status. We conclude that Haro’s first two contentions are without merit. However, we agree with Haro that the trial court erred in imposing a 20- kilogram weight enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision (a)(4), because the accusatory pleading failed to provide 2 Haro with notice that she could be subject to such an enhancement with respect to any charged count. We therefore conclude that this enhancement must be stricken, the sentence vacated, and the matter remanded for resentencing. Given our vacatur of Haro’s sentence and our limited remand for resentencing, we conclude that we need not consider Haro’s final argument. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual background 1. The facts underlying counts 1, 2 and 3 On October 13, 2018, Haro crossed into the United States from Mexico at the Calexico port of entry. Haro was driving a blue Honda CR-V. Her daughter Kenia Haro was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals