P. v. Poteate
Filed 9/24/07 P. v. Poteate CA1/5
Opinion following remand from U.S. Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A112455
v. (SolanoCounty
Super. Ct. No. 178226)
MARY E. POTEATE,
Defendant and Appellant.
______________________________________/
The United States Supreme Court has remanded this case to us with directions to reconsider our decision in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856]. Both parties have submitted formal briefs that discuss Cunningham. In addition, both parties have submitted letter briefs that discuss the California Supreme Courts recent decision in People v. Sandoval(2007) 41 Cal.4th 825. The parties agree that under Sandoval, this case must be remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.[1] We agree.[2]
The trial court is ordered to conduct a new sentencing hearing in accordance with People v. Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th 825. In all other respects, our decision filed on August 18, 2006, remains in effect.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
________________________
Simons, J.
________________________
Bruiniers, J.*
Judge of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] While appellant agrees this court must remand her case to the trial court pursuant to Sandoval, (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455) she is careful to preserve her argument that Sandoval was decided incorrectly.
[2] Appellant also asks us to order the trial court to consider all mitigating circumstances at sentencing and to conduct a full sentencing hearing. We can and must presume the court will follow the law appropriately.
