People v. Robinson CA2/5

── People v. Robinson CA2/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 P. v. Robinson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, B340200 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA019803) v. GARLON GRADY ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Emily J. Cole, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Teresa Biagini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.  Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ****** At a full resentencing conducted while vacating Garlon Grady Robinson’s (defendant’s) one-year prior prison sentence enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75,1 the trial court declined to consider whether two of defendant’s prior “strike” convictions were still valid under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act) (§ 1170.126), denied his request to dismiss those strikes under section 1385, imposed a new 10- year criminal protective order, and re-imposed a $5,000 restitution fine. The People concede that our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838 (Guevara) warrants reversal for the trial court to consider whether to apply the Reform Act. This concession is well taken, and eliminates the need to address defendant’s remaining arguments—except that the court is barred by section 1465.9 from imposing a restitution fine. We accordingly reverse and remand for a full resentencing. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts2 On a Saturday night in December 1999, defendant got angry with his wife once he learned she had thrown away his marijuana plants. Enraged, defendant yelled at her, “backhanded [her] twice across her face,” grabbed her by the hair, “choked her with both hands,” and eventually kicked her in the crotch area while wearing steel-toed boots. He then destroyed several of their household belongings. Wife called law enforcement, but when they arrived, defendant admitted only to “trash[ing] the home” and wife did not mention his physical assaults. After the responding officers left, defendant strangled his wife and also struck her again. Wife fled to her mother’s home and called law enforcement again. Only then did she report the initial assault. She experienced vaginal pain and bleeding that lasted for weeks, had trouble swallowing, and had bruises on her face. She also mentioned this was not defendant’s first eruption of violence against her. On January 4, 2000, wife reported that defendant struck her once on the right side of her face, but responding law enforcement officers only noticed a small scratch on her face. II. Procedural Background A. Prosecution, conviction, and appeal In February 2000, the People charged defendant with (1) assaulting wife with a deadly weapon (namely, the steel-toed boots) (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); (2) assaulting wife by means likely to 2 We draw these facts from our prior unpublished op