People v. Lemus CA4/1

── People v. Lemus CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 P. v. Lemus CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086179 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN459327) MARTIN LEMUS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David G. Brown, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Lisa A. Kopelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Kristine A. Gutierrez and Flavio Nominati, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Martin Lemus appeals his sentence for a robbery conviction, contending the trial court erred by finding that his previous juvenile adjudication qualified as a prior strike and for a prior serious felony enhancement based on a gang enhancement under an earlier version of Penal Code1 section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). He seeks full resentencing. In People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583 (Fletcher), the California Supreme Court determined whether a prior conviction qualifies as a strike and for a prior serious felony enhancement based on a gang enhancement depends on current law, even if the prior conviction occurred under a previous version of the gang statute. The Attorney General concedes that the case should be remanded to permit a retrial on the gang enhancement under current law, and we accept that concession. Lemus further asserts the juvenile adjudication cannot serve as the basis for a prior serious felony enhancement, and we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, vacate the trial court’s findings as to the prior juvenile adjudication, and remand for a retrial on the gang enhancement and for a full resentencing. BACKGROUND In September 2024, Lemus took two shirts from Macy’s without paying for them, spit on and then attempted to punch a loss prevention officer, ran away from and struggled with responding law enforcement officers, and gave the officers a false name. Based on that incident, the People charged Lemus with robbery (§ 211), resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) and giving false information to an officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). The information also included allegations of a serious felony prior (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, & 1192.7, subd. (c)) and a strike prior (§§ 667 (b)–(i), 1170.12, & 668) based on a 2013 juvenile 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 adjudication of assault likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) with a criminal street gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In January 2025, a jury convicted Lemus on all counts. The trial court subsequently found true the allegation that Lemus had a prior serious felony and a strike prior based on the 2013 juvenile adjudication. The trial court sentenced Lemus to the middle term of three years for the robbery, doubled for the strike, and credit for time served for the other offenses, for a total term of six years. The court struck the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) five- year enhancement for the prior serious felony. DISCUSSION On appeal, Lemus contends his se