Opinion
Page 576c
134 Cal.App.4th 576c __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ STEVEN YOUNT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants and Respondents. C046869 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento December 9, 2005Super. Ct. No. 01AS04272
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on November 9, 2005 (133 Cal.App.4th 1424; Cal.Rptr.3d ), be modified as follows:
1. On page 5 of the opinion [133 Cal.App.4th 1429, advance report], in the third sentence of the final full paragraph, change the phrase “Officers Davis and Hatfield” to “the officers” so that the sentence reads:
Finally, the officers forcibly extricated Yount from the back seat.
2. On pages 18 and 19 of the opinion [133 Cal.App.4th 1436, advance report], in footnote 4, delete the last sentence of the footnote, which reads: “But because there is no way of knowing which discrete acts of obstruction the jurors relied on in reaching a finding of guilt, we do not see the validity of the purported distinction.” so that the footnote now reads in its entirety:
Smith II also distinguished Susag on the ground that there the plaintiff’s section 148 conviction was obtained through a jury verdict rather than a plea. The court reasoned that, unlike a guilty plea, the jury verdict necessarily determined the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct throughout the entire course of events. (Smith II, supra, 394 F.3d at p. 699, fn. 5.)
3. On page 27 of the opinion [133 Cal.App.4th 1441, advance report], delete footnote 9, which begins: “The City’s assertion at oral argument” in its entirety and renumber the subsequent footnotes in the opinion accordingly.
This modification does not change the judgment.
The petition for rehearing filed by respondent City of Sacramento is denied.
BLEASE, Acting P. J., MORRISON, J., BUTZ, J.