Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Hutchinson

P. v. Hutchinson

Filed 1/22/07 P. v. Hutchinson CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CHARLES HUTCHINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

H029962

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. CC303155)

In an earlier appeal from defendant's convictions for attempted robbery and burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 213, 459/460),[1] this court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court for the possible retrial of a prior conviction and for resentencing, with directions. On remand, defendant admitted the prior conviction. Relying on our directions, the trial court imposed a total sentence of five years in state prison, instead of the 14 years to which defendant had been originally sentenced. The People appeal, arguing that the re-sentence violates the provisions of section 654 and therefore constitutes an unlawful sentence. Defendant concedes the error, but argues that defendant's admission of the prior conviction is insufficient to support a five-year enhancement of his sentence pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a). We accept defendant's concession of error, reject his contention concerning his prior conviction, reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Historical Facts

The historical facts underlying defendant's convictions are fully set forth in our prior opinion, H026627. In summary, defendant entered a bank twice on two successive days wearing distinctive clothing and, while inside the bank on the second day, wrote something on a piece of paper, approached a teller and said he wanted to cash a check but had left it in his car, walked out of the bank, entered a car and drove away. Bank employees became suspicious and called the police, who found a crumpled envelope at the spot where defendant had entered the car. Handwritten on the envelope was the message: â€

Description	In an earlier appeal from defendant's convictions for attempted robbery and burglary (Pen. Code, SS 213, 459/460), this court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court for the possible retrial of a prior conviction and for resentencing, with directions. On remand, defendant admitted the prior conviction. Relying on our directions, the trial court imposed a total sentence of five years in state prison, instead of the 14 years to which defendant had been originally sentenced. The People appeal, arguing that the re-sentence violates the provisions of section 654 and therefore constitutes an unlawful sentence. Defendant concedes the error, but argues that defendant's admission of the prior conviction is insufficient to support a five year enhancement of his sentence pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a). Court accept defendant's concession of error, reject his contention concerning his prior conviction, reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.