Opinion
D075928
02-18-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAUTIEF RYLAND HAMLETT, Defendant and Appellant.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SDC268505) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General for Defendant and Appellant.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2017, defendant Mautief Ryland Hamlett pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced Hamlett to seven years in prison by imposing the middle term of two years, doubled to four years because of a prior strike, plus three years added for prison priors.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless noted otherwise. --------
Hamlett filed an appeal on December 5, 2017. As a result of the arguments made in that appeal, this court issued an opinion conditionally reversing Hamlett's conviction to allow the trial court on remand to conduct a new hearing pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) as to the conduct of two officers involved in the stop and detention of Hamlett. We held that, if the new Pitchess hearing resulted in discoverable information, Hamlett should be given the opportunity to present evidence and argument he was not able to present at his suppression motion; but that, if there was no newly discovered evidence, the court should reinstate the judgment. (People v. Hamlett (Nov. 20, 2018, D073197) [nonpub. opn.].)
On May 7, 2019, the trial court held an in camera Pitchess hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, it found there was no new information to be disclosed. Pursuant to the conditional order of this court, the trial court reinstated defendant's sentence.
Hamlett filed a timely notice of appeal based on a plea of guilty, the denial of his suppression motion, and other matters including the court's May 7 ruling. Hamlett's appellate counsel subsequently filed an amended notice of appeal.
Hamlett's appellate counsel on September 30, 2019 filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), asking this court to review the record for errors. In particular, counsel requested we review the Pitchess motion. That motion was sealed but was transferred to this court for review.
Hamlett filed a supplemental brief.
During our Wende review, we recognized a potential issue as a result of Senate Bill No. 136, which the Governor signed into law on October 8, 2019, after appellate counsel submitted the Wende brief. (See Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020.) Senate Bill No. 136 amends the circumstances under which the one-year sentence enhancement may be imposed under newly amended section 667.5, subdivision (b). Under the new law, the one-year enhancement only applies if a defendant has served a prior prison term for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b). (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1.)
As a result of this change in the law, on this court's own motion we requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing 1) whether Senate Bill No. 136 applies to defendant; 2) if so, whether one or more of his prison priors qualify for the enhancement under newly amended section 667.5, subdivision (b); and 3) if so, whether the cause should be remanded for resentencing to allow the court to exercise its discretion.
DISCUSSION
In response to our request, the parties submitted supplemental briefs agreeing that Senate Bill No. 136 retroactively applies to defendant and that his three prior prison terms no longer qualify for the one-year enhancement because none involved a sexually violent offense. We agree.
Defendant, however, claims remand for resentencing is unnecessary, as he argued in his supplemental brief and in a February 6, 2020 brief he filed in response to the People's supplemental briefing. The People, on the other hand, in their supplemental brief claim that the cause should be remanded for resentencing.
Based on our review and consideration of the parties' briefing, we agree with the People and conclude that the cause should be remanded for resentencing. (See e.g., People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 896, fn. 15 [noting that, "[b]ecause the resentencing court had imposed the maximum possible sentence, regardless of whether the two-year on-bail enhancement was stricken," there was "no need to remand the matter to the trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion anew"].)
Other than the issue involving Senate Bill No. 136 and its amendment to section 667.5, subdivision (b), in our Wende review we have identified no additional arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
DISPOSITION
Defendant's three one-year prison prior enhancements are stricken as a result of newly amended section 667.5, subdivision (b). The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing of defendant. Upon resentencing, the court is directed to prepare a new abstract of judgment reflecting such change(s) and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. DATO, J.