People v. Diaz CA5

── People v. Diaz CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 P. v. Diaz CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F089058 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MF015111A) v. GREGORIO IDABET DIAZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Tiffany E. Organ-Bowles, Judge. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Ian Whitney and Joseph Penney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Hill, P. J., Peña, J. and DeSantos, J.  INTRODUCTION Defendant Gregorio Idabet Diaz (defendant) was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant suffered a prior strike conviction of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term, doubled due to the strike. Defendant contends on appeal the court erred by imposing the middle term rather than granting probation or imposing the lower term. The People argue defendant was ineligible for probation and the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the middle term. We agree with the People and affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On May 3, 2024, the District Attorney of Kern County charged defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); count 1) and driving a vehicle with blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b); count 2), with an allegation under Vehicle Code section 23550.5, subdivision (b) that defendant had previously been convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a))1 for both counts. It was alleged defendant had served a prior prison term (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3)) and suffered one prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (a)–(e), 1170.12). A jury found defendant guilty of both counts. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the prior conviction allegation under Vehicle Code section 23550.5, subdivision (b), the prior prison term allegation and the prior strike conviction allegation true. Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a statement in mitigation, which included a 1 Hereinafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. Romero2 motion inviting the court to strike the prior strike conviction. The prosecution filed an opposition to the Romero motion along with a sentencing statement. On December 11, 2024, the trial court denied defendant’s Romero motion. The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years, doubled to four years due to the prior strike, on count 1. The same term was imposed but stayed, pursuant to section