People v. Campa CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: E084129
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 12/8/25 P. v. Campa 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E084129

v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF2000907)

DEAN RICHARD CAMPA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Otis Sterling III,

Judge. Affirmed with directions.

David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Donald W. Ostertag and

Robin Urbanski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

On February 6, 2024, a jury found defendant and appellant Dean Richard

Campa guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code,2 §§ 664, 187, count 1) and the lesser

included offense of attempted stalking (§§ 664, 646.9, subd. (a), count 2). The jury

additionally found true allegations that defendant personally and intentionally

discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury to another person (§

12022.53, subd. (d)) (GBI enhancement) and personally and intentionally inflicted

great bodily injury upon another person with whom defendant previously had a dating

relationship (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) (DV enhancement).

The court thereafter found true allegations that defendant had suffered a prior

serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e),

1170.12, subd. (c)). The court also found true two aggravating factors.

The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate determinate term of 28 years

eight months and an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. The court imposed the

upper term of nine years for the attempted murder, doubled due to defendant’s prior

strike conviction, for 18 years. The court imposed one-third the midterm of one year,

doubled, consecutive for the attempted stalking, for eight months. The court imposed

five years consecutive on the DV enhancement. The court likewise imposed a

consecutive five years for the prior serious felony conviction for an aggregate

1 We omit a recitation of the facts because they are irrelevant to the issues raised on appeal.

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 determinate term of 28 years eight months. The court imposed 25 years to life on the

GBI enhancement.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the court erred in imposing and executing an unauthorized

five-year sentence on the DV enhancement and that the abstract of judgment should be

corrected to reflect that defendant was convicted by a jury rather than the court. The

People concede that the court was required to impose and stay sentence on the

enhancement, and that the abstract should be corrected. We agree.

“Only one additional term of imprisonment under this section shall be imposed

per person for each crime. If more than one enhancement per person is found true

under this section, the court shall impose upon that person the enhancement that

provides the longest term of imprisonment.” (§ 12022.53, subd. (f).) “An

enhancement for great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or

12022.9 shall not be imposed on a person in addition to an enhancement imposed

pursuant to subdivision (d).” (Ibid.)

Section 12022.53, subdivision (f) “directs that only one enhancement may be

imposed and then executed per person for each crime, and allows a trial court to

impose and then stay all other prohibited enhancements.” (People v. Gonzalez (2008)

43 Cal.4th 1118, 1127; accord People v. Garcia (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 941, 948-949

[“‘An enhancement for great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or

3 12022.9 shall not be imposed on a person in addition to an enhancement imposed

pursuant to subdivision (d).’ (§ 12022.53, subd. (f).)”].)

Here, the parties are correct that the court could not impose and execute a five-

year sentence on the DV enhancement since the court imposed and executed a 25 years

to life sentence on the GBI enhancement, the enhancement which provided the longest

term of imprisonment. Thus, we shall direct the court to impose and stay execution of

sentence on the DV enhancement.

Additionally, the court should correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that a

jury convicted defendant on both counts. The abstract also incorrectly reflects that the

court imposed a consecutive five-year term on the GBI enhancement, when it actually

imposed five years on the DV enhancement. Since we are directing that the court stay

the five-year DV enhancement, the court should also correct the statutory basis for the

enhancement on the abstract of judgment. (People v. Odell (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th

307, 322.)

III. DISPOSITION

The sentencing court is directed to impose and stay imposition of punishment

on the section 12022.7, subdivision (e) enhancement, which is incorrectly reflected as

a section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement on the abstract of judgment. The

sentencing court is also directed to correct the statutory basis for the stayed

enhancement on the abstract of judgment. The court is further directed to correct the

abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant was convicted by a jury. Finally, the

4 court is directed to forward a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

FIELDS J.