Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Mario Campa of four counts of attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder, with true findings that he committed the crimes for the benefit of a gang under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C), and that a principal used a firearm causing great bodily injury on each count under section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). The trial court originally sentenced Campa to 80 years to life, imposing 15 years to life for the first count under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5), and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, with an identical consecutive term on the second count and concurrent identical terms on the remaining two counts. The court imposed but stayed the 10-year terms for the section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) enhancements as to each count.
Campa appealed, and the Court of Appeal vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing after finding the trial court erroneously imposed both the gun enhancement under section 12022.53 and the 15-year minimum parole eligibility period under section 186.22. On remand, the trial court resentenced Campa to 30 years to life, imposing 15 years to life on the first two counts consecutively and 15 years to life on each remaining count concurrently, while staying punishment for all enhancements. The Legislature then enacted Assembly Bill No. 333, changing the statutes governing gang-related offenses and enhancements.
In Campa II, the Court of Appeal held Campa entitled to relief under the new law, reversed the gang-enhancement findings and firearms allegations, vacated the sentence, and remanded to give the People the opportunity to retry the gang enhancements. On January 15, 2025, the People advised that they would not retry the gang enhancements, but the prosecution asked the court to impose the previously stayed 25-years-to-life terms on each attempted murder count for the firearms enhancements. The trial court sentenced Campa to 100 years to life by imposing 25 years to life on each count under section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). Campa timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was unauthorized. Campa argued that remand was required because the trial court imposed previously stayed gang-related firearms enhancements after the gang findings had been vacated. The Attorney General conceded the argument, explaining that the firearms enhancements were contingent on the vacated gang enhancements; once the People declined to retry the gang enhancements, the jury's firearm allegations under section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1), having been reversed, could not be imposed. The court cited People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746 for that result.
The court accepted the concession and agreed. It reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing. The opinion also observed that the trial court had resentenced Campa to a higher aggregate term than both prior sentences, and noted that although a greater sentence to correct an unauthorized sentence can sometimes be permissible, imposing a greater sentence after a successful appeal may be an excess of jurisdiction under People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753 and People v. Trammel (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 415. The court found that issue likely moot based on its disposition.
The court expressly declined to address Campa's other claims concerning the trial court's exercise of discretion and the denial of his request to continue the hearing. The disposition states that the judgment is reversed and remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1), that are tethered to gang enhancements cannot be imposed once the gang enhancements have been reversed and the prosecution declines to retry them.
- The Attorney General conceded that the firearms enhancements were contingent on the vacated gang enhancements, and the Court of Appeal accepted that concession while citing People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735.
- The trial court's 100-years-to-life sentence, imposed after the People declined to retry the gang enhancements, was unauthorized, so the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for resentencing.
- The court treated the possible jurisdictional problem of a higher sentence after a successful appeal as likely moot and did not decide it.
- The court left unaddressed Campa's remaining claims about the trial court's exercise of discretion and the denial of a continuance.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that firearm enhancements premised on gang findings under section 12022.53 are derivative of the underlying gang enhancements and cannot stand independently when those gang findings have been reversed and the prosecution elects not to retry them. Applying People v. Cooper, the court treated the contingent firearm allegations as falling with the vacated gang allegations.
The case also shows the downstream sentencing effect of Assembly Bill No. 333 and preserves two cautions for remand: a higher sentence after a successful appeal may raise a jurisdictional issue, and unresolved discretionary and continuance claims remain open because the court did not address them.