P. v. Sandoval
On April 26, 2005, an information was filed charging appellant Aida Sandoval and Yessenia Romero[1] in count 1 with the murder of Belen Dercio (Pen. Code,[2] 187, subd. (a)); in count 2, with the murder of Rolando Rojas ( 187, subd. (a)); and in count 3, with the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Salvador Ramirez ( 187, subd. (a), 664). Under counts 1 and 2, the information alleged that appellant and Romero had committed the murders by lying in wait ( 190.2, subd. (a)(15)); furthermore, under each count it was alleged that a principal involved in the offense had been armed with a firearm ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)). In our original opinion (People v. Sandoval (Nov. 14, 2006, B187977 ) [nonpub. opn.], review granted Feb. 7, 2007, S148917), we concluded that under People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238 (Black I) the trial court properly imposed the high term on count 1; Court modified the sentence imposed on count 3 for reasons not relevant here and affirmed the judgment, so modified. The United States Supreme Court subsequently overruled BlackI in part in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). In People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 (Sandoval), our Supreme Court reversed our judgment with respect to the high term imposed on count 1, and remanded the case to us with directions to remand it to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with its opinion.[
Comments on P. v. Sandoval