P. v. Laumann
Filed 2/16/06 P. v. Laumann CA1/1
NOTTO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRSTAPPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISIONONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LANCE ERNEST LAUMANN, Defendant and Appellant. |
A091588
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. 28420 & 28620)
|
Defendant Lance ErnestLaumann moves to recall the remittitur. Several years after this appeal becamefinal, the California Supreme Courtclarified an aspect of the law of second degree felony murder that was centralto defendant's case. As a result of that clarification, defendant stands convictedand sentenced under an invalidtheory of felony murder. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, wegrant the motion. We shall recall the remittitur, order that a new remittiturissue that reverses the second degree felonymurder conviction and affirms defendant's remaining convictions, and remandthe matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND & FACTS
Defendant was convictedof second degree felony murder, vehicularmanslaughter, evasion of a police officer, possession of a firearm by a convictedfelon, and several drug offenses. The predicate felony of the seconddegree felony murder conviction was evasion of a police officer, i.e., drivingin willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property whilefleeing from the police. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2 (section 2800.2).)
Defendant'svarious crimes arose from two separate events, in late April and early May1999. In the first event, police found a loaded sawed-off rifle and thecomponents of a methamphetamine laboratory in a car linked to defendant. Inthe second event, defendant sped away from a traffic stop at 1:00 a.m. and evaded police pursuit on a rural road at speeds of 70 to 80 miles per hour. He crashed his car. His passenger, his girlfriend Sandra â€
| Description | Defendant moves to recall the remittitur. Several years after this appeal became final, the California Supreme Court clarified an aspect of the law of second degree felony murder that was central to defendant's case. As a result of that clarification, defendant stands convicted and sentenced under an invalid theory of felony murder. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, we grant the motion. Court recall the remittitur, order that a new remittitur issue that reverses the second degree felony murder conviction and affirms defendant's remaining convictions, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. |
| Rating |
