Opinion
Page 1402d
185 Cal.App.4th 1402d __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMAN KENNETH KEATING, Defendant and Appellant. B210240 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Seventh Division July 1, 2010Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA056847.
THE COURT
IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on June 7, 2010, (185 Cal.App.4th 364;___Cal.Rptr.3d___), and certified for publication, be modified as follows:
1. On page 20, in the second full paragraph, at lines 7-8 [185 Cal.App.4th 383, advance report, 1st full par., lines 8-9], the opinion states: “However, in this district, Division One in People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049 [107 Cal.Rptr.3d 830] and Division Six in People v. Delgado (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 271 [108 Cal.Rptr.3d 789], have reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the amendments are retroactive.”
It should read: “However, in this district, Division One in People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049 [107 Cal.Rptr.3d 830] reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the amendments are retroactive.”
2. On page 20, in the second full paragraph [185 Cal.App.4th 383, advance report, 1st full par., line 17], the last sentence states: “As we shall explain, we join Division One and Six of this district and the majority view that the amendments apply retroactively.”
It should read: “As we shall explain, we join Division One of this district and the majority view that the amendments apply retroactively.”
3. On page 26, in the second full paragraph, starting at line 11 [185 Cal.App.4th 388, advance report, 2d full par., line 12], the opinion states: “Our sister divisions in this district and the First and Third District Courts of Appeal recently reached the same conclusion in considering the 2009 amendments to section 4019.”
It should read: “Division One in this district and the First and Third District Courts of Appeal recently reached the same conclusion in considering the 2009 amendments to section 4019.”
4. On page 29, in the second full paragraph [185 Cal.App.4th 390, advance report, 2d full par., line 2], the first sentence states: "Accordingly, we follow
Page 1402e
the majority of California courts, as well as Division One and Six of this district, in holding that section 4019, as amended, constitutes an amendatory statute mitigating punishment under Estrada.
'"It should read: "Accordingly, we follow the majority of California courts, as well as Division One of this district, in holding that section 4019, as amended, constitutes an amendatory statute mitigating punishment under Estrada.”
The foregoing does not change the judgment.