From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Singleton

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.
Nov 12, 2003
No. B159699 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2003)

Opinion

B159699.

11-12-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES SINGLETON and CEKOVEN JOHNSON, Defendants and Appellants.


THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed by appellant Cekoven Johnson on October 30, 2003, is DENIED; and that the opinion filed herein on October 14, 2003, be modified in the following particulars:

1. On page 2, the second sentence of the first paragraph is amended to insert words, "and discharged," after, "intentionally used."

2. The first sentence on page 3 is deleted, and the following sentence is inserted in its place:

Valentine, who recognized Johnson, because Johnson had dated a relative of his a month or two before, said to Johnson, "I know who you is."

3. The words, "with them," are deleted from the second sentence of the third paragraph on page 3.

4. The second sentence of the third paragraph on page 4 is deleted, and the following sentence is inserted in its place:

He falsely identified himself as Darryl Thomas, and gave a false date of birth that would have made him 17 years old.

5. The words, "told them the same thing," are deleted from the last full sentence on page 5, and the words, "talked to them," are inserted in their place.

6. On page 7, in the last sentence of the second full paragraph, after the words, "section 12022.53," the words, "subdivision (c), that a principal had personally used," are deleted, and the words, "subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), that a principal had personally discharged," are inserted in their place.

7. On page 8, in the second sentence of the first full paragraph, after the words, "section 12022.53," the words "subdivision (c)," are deleted, and the words, "subdivisions (c) and (e)(1)," are inserted in their place.

8. On page 11, in the citation to People v. Lashley (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 938, the page number, 953, is deleted, and the page number, 943, is inserted in its place.

9. On pages 24 and 25, the first paragraph under the heading, Sentencing Issues, is deleted, and the following two paragraphs are inserted in its place:

Johnson contends that no enhancement at all should have been imposed pursuant to section 186.22, since section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(2), was applicable. And both appellants contend that the trial court erred in imposing a 10-year gang enhancement upon their life sentences for count 1, pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). Respondent concedes these points.

Since the sentence on count 1 was the base term for both appellants, the reversal of that count will require resentencing. We agree that upon resentencing, the applicable enhancement should be imposed upon Johnsons sentence as set forth in Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and that pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(2), no gang enhancement should be imposed upon Johnson under section 186.22. (See People v. Salas (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1281-1282.) With regard to Singleton, we assume that upon resentencing, the trial court will impose the correct sentence in relation to the new base term, pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (5), rather than subdivision (1), as it did originally. (See People v. Villegas (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228-1229.)

This modification does not change the judgment.

EPSTEIN, Acting P.J. HASTINGS, J. CURRY, J.


Summaries of

People v. Singleton

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.
Nov 12, 2003
No. B159699 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Singleton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES SINGLETON and CEKOVEN…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

Date published: Nov 12, 2003

Citations

No. B159699 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2003)