People v. Contreras CA2/2

── People v. Contreras CA2/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Contreras CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B345088 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 24EMCF00431) ANDREW CONTRERAS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rogelio Delgado, Judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Travis Daily, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  Defendant and appellant Andrew Contreras (defendant) was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)). After defendant admitted two prior strike convictions, he was sentenced to 25 years to life pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)). One of defendant’s strikes stemmed from a 2014 conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, which was elevated to a strike because of the attached gang enhancement. Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 333), enacted after defendant’s 2014 conviction, introduced stricter standards for proving gang enhancements. Relying on People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576 (Fletcher), decided after his sentencing hearing, defendant argues his prior strike finding must be vacated and his case remanded to allow the People to prove the 2014 gang enhancement under Assembly Bill 333’s new standards. Respondent agrees. We reverse and remand to the trial court. BACKGROUND Statement of the case On September 26, 2024, defendant was charged by information with one count of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1) and one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The People also alleged that defendant had suffered three prior serious and/or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. Prior to trial, on the People’s motion, the court dismissed count 1. The People also amended the information to allege aggravating factors. 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2  After a jury trial, on February 11, 2025, defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon as alleged in count 2. Defendant waived jury trial on the strike prior allegations and the aggravating factors. During the court trial on the prior strikes, defendant admitted to suffering a 2011 conviction for section 422 and a 2014 conviction for section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) with a gang enhancement pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b). The People moved to dismiss the third strike allegation stemming from a 2001 conviction because it was a misdemeanor vandalism made a felony because of the attached section 186.22, subdivision (b) gang enhancement. As such, the third strike allegation was dismissed. Ahead of sentencing, defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss the strike priors pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The motion was filed under seal. The People filed their response to defendant’s motion an