People v. Hanson CA2/6

── People v. Hanson CA2/6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/19/26 P. v. Hanson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B338897 (Super. Ct. No. 1298239) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County) v. SCOTT RANDOLPH HANSON, Defendant and Appellant. Scott Randolph Hanson appeals a judgment following his 2023 resentencing required by Penal Code section 1172.75.1 He contends the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike either his 1988 strike prior pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) or his two prior serious felony enhancements pursuant to Senate Bill 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) based on the remoteness of the priors and his good conduct in prison. We affirm. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.  Factual and Procedural Background2 In July 2009, Ixchelle Yakimowich stepped out of the shower and walked to her bedroom wearing only a towel when she saw a stranger looking through her window. She yelled to her fiancé, Matthew Meczka, who ran outside and saw appellant “ ‘peek out’ ” from behind a hedge near the house. A confrontation ensued, and appellant struck Meczka with a two- by-four before running off. When police arrested appellant, they found a mattress in the backyard that was laying on top of planks of wood similar to the two-by-four Meczka described. Neighbors told police that appellant had been peeping into their bedroom window. In August 2009, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney charged appellant with one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1) and two counts of misdemeanor peeking (§ 647, subd. (i), counts 2 & 3). As to count 1, the People alleged three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A), three prior serious felony conviction enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and four prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In November 2009, a jury found appellant guilty as charged in count 1. He pleaded no contest to the two misdemeanor counts. The trial court subsequently found true the prior conviction allegations. In June 2010, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss a strike conviction and sentenced him to a third strike term of 25 years to life as to count 1, plus two five-year terms 2 A complete statement of the facts can be found in our prior opinion People v. Hanson (Jul. 27, 2011, B225484) [nonpub. opn.] (Hanson). 2 pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a), and one year pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). As to counts 2 and 3, the trial court sentenced appellant to six months, with the term for count 2 to run consecutively and the term for count 3 to run concurrently with the term imposed in count 1. We affirmed appellant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion. (Hanson, supra, B225484.) In that appeal, appellant argued, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike his 1988 prior strike conviction. We disagreed and explained that although appellant’s conviction was remote in time, he spent much of that time incarcerated. He then committed the current offense shortly after being released from prison and absconding from parole supervision. We further explained that even if appellant’s criminal histo