People v. Gomez CA4/2

── People v. Gomez CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/4/26 P. v. Gomez CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E085752 v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1600506) ANDY MARAS GOMEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John M. Monterosso, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions. Laura Vavakin, 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, Steve Oetting and Eric Tran, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  INTRODUCTION Andy Gomez appeals from an order resentencing him under Penal Code section 1172.75.1 He argues that the court erred by (1) failing to strike his gang enhancement under the amendments made to section 186.22 by Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 333) and (2) reimposing the upper term on the principal count based on aggravating factors that had neither been admitted by him nor found true beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the first contention but not the second. We therefore vacate the admitted gang enhancement but otherwise affirm. On remand, the prosecution shall have the opportunity to establish the enhancement under current law either by plea or by trial, if they so desire. BACKGROUND In April 2016, after Gomez and two other inmates attacked another inmate in jail, the People charged Gomez with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245(a)(4); count 1), false imprisonment by force (§ 236; count 2), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, the People alleged that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The People also alleged that Gomez served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (c), 1170.12, subd. (c)). 1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code. 2  In October 2016, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Gomez waived his right to a preliminary hearing, pled guilty to the felony assault and false imprisonment charges (counts 1 and 2), and admitted the gang enhancement attached to the felony assault charge. Gomez also admitted that he served two prior prison terms and had a prior strike conviction. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the gang participation charge (count 3) and the gang enhancement to the false imprisonment charge. The trial court sentenced Gomez to the stipulated term of 15 years four months in prison, which included the upper term of four years for the felony assault, doubled to eight years under the three strikes law, plus four years for the gang enhancement and two years for the three prior prison term enhancements. In 2022, Gomez became eligible for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. At a resentencing hearing in