People v. Miranda CA2/8

── People v. Miranda CA2/8 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 P. v. Miranda CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT THE PEOPLE, B340714 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA056316) v. HUMBERTO MIRANDA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded in part with directions. Michael H. Casey, 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, Roberta L. Davis and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________  In 2008, a jury convicted Humberto Miranda of attempted premeditated murder, second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury also found true several sentencing allegations. The trial court sentenced Miranda to 59 years to life in prison under the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code,1 §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). His sentence included prior prison term sentence enhancements, which have since been abrogated. Miranda was entitled to a full resentencing. At that resentencing Miranda asked the trial court, among other things, to strike his prior strike convictions in addition to the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements. The trial court refused to strike his prior strike convictions. Miranda contends this was an abuse of discretion. Miranda also contends the trial court erred when it delegated recalculation of his custody credits to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation instead of doing the recalculation itself. Finally, he argues the trial court erroneously reimposed the original restitution order without the prior condition of joint and several liability as to his two codefendants. The People agree with the last two contentions. We agree as well. We affirm the judgment but remand with directions to the trial court to recalculate Miranda’s custodial credits and to reimpose the restitution order with joint and several liability. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2  PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Miranda was jointly charged with Steven Garcia and George Hernandez with the premeditated attempted murder and second degree robbery of Rustam K. Miranda alone was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon and assault with a firearm. He was also charged with criminal street gang enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C), firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e)(1), prior prison term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b), and prior strike convictions under the Three Strikes Law. A jury convicted Miranda of all substantive offenses and most of the enhancements. In a bifurcated trial the court found true two Three Strikes priors and two section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced Miranda to 59 years to life in prison. (People v. Miranda (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 398, 402–403.) It also imposed a victim restitution order of $74,742.84 subject to joint and several liability with the two codefendants. Before 2020, the Penal