People v. Heard CA3

Filed 9/11/24 P. v. Heard CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098963

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR-002548)

v.

SHANE MICHAEL HEARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of arson of forest land and admitted he had previously been convicted of a serious felony and arson. At sentencing, defendant asked the trial court to dismiss the prior serious felony conviction, two sentencing enhancements, and an allegation that defendant committed the arson during a state of emergency. The trial court declined defendant’s requests and sentenced him to 23 years in prison, including a concurrent sentence for the second arson count.

1

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by declining to dismiss the prior serious felony conviction, the enhancements, and the state of emergency allegation. The People ask us to remand for resentencing, contending the trial court lacked discretion to impose concurrent sentences because defendant committed the two arsons three days apart and Penal Code section 667, subdivision (c)(6) requires consecutive sentences when a defendant has a prior serious felony conviction and “there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts.” (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) We agree that the trial court could not impose concurrent sentences without first striking the prior serious felony conviction.

Because the trial court misunderstood its sentencing discretion and imposed an unauthorized sentence, we will vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for the court to reconsider its sentencing choices. As we are vacating defendant’s sentence, we need not address his contention that the court abused its discretion.