Error and/or relief
The defendant must be resentenced in light of enhancement-related errors and that the minute order from the bench trial on the defendant’s prior convictions requires correction. Therefore, we remand for resentencing and direct the minute order to be corrected.
First Holding:
Several of the errors raised involve the trial court’s exercise of discretion and were forfeited by the defendant’s failure to object below. Nonetheless, we have doubts about whether the trial court in fact exercised its discretion in failing to impose certain enhancements and making other sentencing choices, especially given discrepancies between the court’s tentative sentences and its final sentences. There also appears to be at least one error resulting in an unauthorized sentence that the parties do not raise. Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to remand for both defendants to be fully resentenced so that the court can ensure the sentences reflect its intent in accordance with the law.
Authority:
People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 594
In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130
Second Holding:
Weapon enhancements must be either imposed consecutively or stricken. Such an enhancement cannot be imposed concurrently.
Authority:
PEN 1385
PEN 12022
Third Holding:
Unless stricken, prior-serious-felony and prior-prison-term enhancements are added once to each count on which an indeterminate term is imposed and once for the combined counts on which an aggregate determinate term has been imposed.
Authority:
People v. Tua (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1136, 1141
People v. Minifie (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1256, 1260
Fourth Holding:
A sentencing court may not impose terms for both a prior-serious-felony enhancement and a prior-prison-term enhancement that are based on the same underlying conviction.
Authority:
People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 612
Fifth Holding:
If a prior-conviction enhancement or punishment for it is stricken in the interest of justice, the enhancement should not also be imposed and stayed under section 654.
Authority:
People v. Tang (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1008–1009
Sixth Holding:
The trial court should ensure that it sufficiently explains its discretionary sentencing choices on the record.
Authority:
Rules of Court, rule 4.406
Seventh Holding:
There were several errors in the minute order that must be corrected.
[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its directive that the abstract be corrected, but the law is very clear that it has that authority. I have cited some cases that the court could have relied on.]Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2