Filed 7/8/26 P. v. Ortiz CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H053319
(Santa Clara County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2409788)
v.
RYAN ANTHONY ORTIZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of
Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.)
Defendant Ryan Anthony Ortiz was convicted by jury of three misdemeanors. He
was initially charged with felony possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11378; count 1), felony sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379,
subd. (a); count 2), misdemeanor possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466; count
3), and misdemeanor possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11364, subd. (a); count 4). The charges were based on a single incident in which
police searched defendant’s motorcycle, finding drugs (including methamphetamine) and
a skeleton key.
On counts 1 and 2, the jury found defendant not guilty of the charged felonies but
found him guilty of misdemeanor methamphetamine possession (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11377) as a lesser included offense on both counts. The jury acquitted defendant of
possessing burglary tools (count 3) but found him guilty of possessing controlled
substance paraphernalia (count 4). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated its
intent to suspend imposition of sentence and place defendant on informal probation for
one year, with conditions including 360 days in jail.
Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the two convictions for
methamphetamine possession were based on the same act and one of them must therefore
be reversed. The Attorney General agrees, as do we. “A defendant may be charged in an
accusatory pleading with ‘two or more different offenses connected together in their
commission’ and ‘may be convicted of any number of the offenses charged’ ” but, “if two
alleged offenses are ‘different statements of the same offense’ ([Pen. Code,] § 954), both
offenses may be charged based on the same act, but convictions for both cannot stand.”
(People v. Aguayo (2022) 13 Cal.5th 974, 979.) “ ‘The most reasonable construction of
the language in [Penal Code] section 954 is that the statute authorizes multiple
convictions for different or distinct offenses, but does not permit multiple convictions for
a different statement of the same offense when it is based on the same act or course of
conduct.’ ” (People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650.) Penal Code section 954 thus
does not authorize multiple convictions for defendant’s possession of methamphetamine
on this record.
The parties correctly agree that the conviction on count 2 must be vacated.
Defendant urges us to “remand the case back to the trial court” (presumably for vacatur
and possible resentencing), while the Attorney General asks us to vacate the conviction
and affirm the judgment as modified. Because the record does not indicate defendant’s
current status or the extent to which the invalid conviction may have influenced the trial
court’s sentencing choices, we will remand the matter for appropriate action by the trial
court.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to vacate the
conviction on count 2 and to proceed with resentencing as necessary.
3
____________________________________
Grover, J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________
Greenwood, P. J.
____________________________
Lie, J.
H053319
The People v. Ortiz