P. v. Bohigan
Filed 7/28/06 P. v. Bohigan CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER M. BOHIGIAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
F047624
(Super. Ct. No. BF108875B)
O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Clarence Westra, Judge.
Peggy A. Headley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, J. Robert Jibson and Judy Kaida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Christopher M. Bohigian pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court denied the motion to strike his prior 1994 conviction for sentencing purposes (Pen. Code, § 1385; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and imposed a 32-month prison term. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Romero motion. He argues that the matter must be remanded for resentencing because the court erroneously considered facts not supported by the record and failed to mention favorable factors that were supported by the record. Specifically, appellant points out that the trial court relied on the erroneous findings that after his 1994 conviction he was paroled on August 18, 1998, rather than on July 30, 1995, and that after appellant's 1998 conviction he served seven, rather than about five and one-half, additional years in custody. Because it appears that the trial court relied on the erroneous belief that appellant had spent less time out of custody than he had, we vacate the sentence and remand for rehearing of the Romero motion and for resentencing. In all other respects we affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
â€
