Opinion
B325826
06-27-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLAUDE CHATMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Sydney Banach, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Lindsay Boyd, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. YA101436, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.
Sydney Banach, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Lindsay Boyd, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
Appellant Claude Chatman was convicted of first degree robbery after he and one codefendant robbed a man in the man's home, took his car keys, and stole $15,000 from the man's car. On appeal, both Chatman and respondent, the People, argue that the trial court applied the incorrect sentencing triad in sentencing Chatman, and that we should remand for full resentencing. We agree.
In sentencing Chatman, the court referred to nine years as the high term of the applicable sentencing triad, and applied this high term in sentencing Chatman for his first degree robbery conviction. The applicable sentencing triad for a first degree robbery conviction, however, is three, four, or six years. (See Pen. Code, § 213, subd. (a)(1)(B).) The sentencing triad the court appears to have applied is that applicable to "in concert" robbery under section 213, subdivision (a)(1)(A), which requires a finding by the jury that a defendant "voluntarily act[ed] in concert with two or more other persons" in committing a robbery of an inhabited dwelling house. (§ 213, subd. (a)(1)(A); see People v. Epperson (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 385, 391.) The court did not instruct the jury on robbery in concert, the jury did not find Chatman acted in concert with more than two individuals in committing the robbery, and no evidence was presented at trial suggesting any other individuals were involved in committing the robbery except Chatman and his codefendant.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The court's sentence applying the incorrect sentencing triad is thus unauthorized. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [an unauthorized sentence "occurs where the court violates mandatory provisions governing the length of confinement"] & People v. Izaguirre (2007) 42 Cal.4th 126, 131 ["the elements of a sentence enhancement must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt if there is exposure to increased punishment," italics omitted].) Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand to the court for full resentencing using the correct sentencing triad. (See People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [full resentencing is appropriate where part of a sentence is stricken on review]; People v. Irvin (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 180, 192 ["[a]s a result of the trial court's imposition of an unauthorized sentence, the appropriate course of action is to remand this case to the trial court for resentencing"].)
Chatman further argues that the court could not have selected the upper term from even the correct sentencing triad, in light of Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3),which prevents a court from imposing an upper term sentence unless the aggravating circumstances justifying the upper term are found true beyond a reasonable doubt by the trier of fact, expressly stipulated to by defendant, or proven by a certified record of conviction. (§ 1170, subd. (b)(2).) Chatman argues that the record does not contain such support for the aggravating circumstances identified by the court at sentencing. Given our conclusion above that the court must conduct a full resentencing, however, Chatman's argument regarding Senate Bill No. 567 is moot. Further, Chatman's request that we instruct the court to correctly apply Senate Bill No. 567 and all applicable laws upon resentencing is premature.
Senate Bill No. 567 became effective on January 1, 2022 (Stats 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3), and Chatman was sentenced on December 5, 2022. Therefore, it applied at his sentencing.
DISPOSITION
The sentence is reversed, and the matter is remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion. Upon resentencing, the court is directed to prepare and forward an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BENDIX, J. WEINGART, J.