P. v. Chatman
Filed 11/19/10 P. v. Chatman CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LELAND CHATMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B221836 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA073807) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles D. Sheldon, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Kenneth J. Hutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, William H. Shin, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Defendant Leland Chatman appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court resentenced him after we filed an opinion in defendant’s prior appeal reversing gang enhancement findings, but before issuance of a remittitur. We reverse the judgment because the trial court resentenced defendant before it had jurisdiction to do so.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He appealed, raising several claims of error. In an unpublished opinion filed on September 29, 2009, we reversed the jury’s gang enhancement findings for insufficiency of evidence and remanded for resentencing (B202934).
On November 24, 2009, the trial court resentenced defendant to nine years eight months in prison.
Remittitur issued on December 3, 2009.
Defendant appealed, requesting judicial notice of the appellate record in B202934. His request for judicial notice is granted.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cause at the time it resentenced defendant because remittitur had not yet issued. The parties agree that the ensuing judgment was void and the cause must be remanded for resentencing. They are right. (People v. Saunoa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 870, 872.) Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing.
The parties also agree that after resentencing, the trial court should recalculate defendant’s actual custody credits up through the date of the resentencing hearing (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29) and issue an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that the firearm enhancement was found and imposed under subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 12022.5.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing after this court issues its remittitur. The trial court should recalculate defendant’s actual custody credits up through the date of the resentencing hearing and issue an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that the firearm enhancement was found and imposed under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a).
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO, P. J.
We concur:
CHANEY, J.
JOHNSON, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
