Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. BA280950. Lance A. Ito, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cannon & Harris and Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal and the California Appellate Project, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MANELLA, J.
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2005, an information was filed charging appellant Aida Sandoval and Yessenia Romero in count 1 with the murder of Belen Dercio (Pen. Code, § 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)).
Romero and appellant were tried together. Romero is not a party to this appeal.
All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
Appellant pleaded not guilty, and denied the special circumstances and firearm allegations. On October 19, 2005, a jury found appellant guilty of voluntary manslaughter regarding Dercio and Rojas, and guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter regarding Ramirez. It found the firearm allegations not true. The trial court imposed a total sentence of 14 years and four months in prison, composed of the high term of 11 years for count 1, a consecutive term of two years for count 2, and a consecutive term of one year and four months for count 3. Appellant noticed an appeal from the judgment on December 23, 2005.
The jury found Romero guilty of involuntary manslaughter regarding Dercio and Rojas, and found the firearm allegations not true.
In our original opinion (People v. Sandoval (Nov. 14, 2006, B187977) [nonpub. opn.], rev. granted Feb. 7, 2007, S148917), we concluded that under People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238 (Black) the trial court properly imposed the high term on count 1; we 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 Black in part in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270. 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. The Supreme Court issued its remittitur on August 27, 2007.
On September 24, 2007, while the case was pending before this court, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing, imposed the high term of 11 years on count 1, and otherwise reaffirmed its original sentence. On September 27, appellant noticed the appeal before us regarding the sentence. The next day, we filed our post-remand opinion in the original appeal (People v. Sandoval (Sept. 28, 2007, B187977) [nonpub. opn.]), which reasserted our original conclusions on all matters aside from the sentence on count 1, and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing on count 1 pursuant to Sandoval, as directed by the Supreme Court. Our remittitur issued on November 29, 2007.
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s principal contention is that the sentence imposed by the trial court on September 24, 2007, is void for want of jurisdiction. We agree. Appellant’s December 2005 notice of appeal vested this court with sole jurisdiction regarding the judgment, including her sentence. (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 554.) Jurisdiction passed to the Supreme Court during its review of our original opinion, and returned to us upon issuance of the Supreme Court’s remittitur. (Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 754, 771-773.) The trial court lacked jurisdiction over appellant’s sentence prior to the issuance of our remittitur. (People v. Sonoqui (1934) 1 Cal.2d 364, 365-367; People v. Saunoa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 870, 872-873.) The sentence imposed upon appellant on September 24, 2007, is therefore void. (Id. at p. 871.) Respondent agrees.
Appellant also contends on numerous grounds that Sandoval was wrongly decided. We decline to address these contentions, as we are bound by our Supreme Court’s directive to remand the matter for resentencing under Sandoval. (Zumwalt v. Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 813, 815; see Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
DISPOSITION
The sentence imposed September 24, 2007, is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence appellant on count 1 in accordance with Sandoval,as elaborated in our post-remand opinion (People v. Sandoval (Sept. 28, 2007, B187977) [nonpub. opn.]).
We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J., SUZUKAWA, J.