P. v. Pittman CA2/6
Appellant filed briefs contending the court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction (CALCRIM No. 3500) on the criminal threats count, and in accepting the jury’s verdict in appellant’s absence rather than granting a continuance. After we issued our decision affirming the judgment, we granted appellant’s petition for rehearing on the issue whether he is entitled to resentencing in light of Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.; hereinafter AB 124), which went into effect while this appeal was pending. The People agree that appellant is entitled to resentencing under the new legislation, and we shall order the matter remanded accordingly.
Comments on P. v. Pittman CA2/6