People v. Brown CA2/4

Filed 9/17/24 P. v. Brown CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B332740 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA440221)

v.

KERMEN BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Reversed and Remanded. Maria Leftwich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Kermen Brown was sentenced to state prison for 14 years pursuant to a plea agreement. About a month later, defendant was sentenced to state prison for four years in a second case, again pursuant to a plea agreement, to run concurrently with his 14-year sentence in the first case. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) subsequently notified the trial court that defendant’s sentence in the second case was enhanced under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b)1 and therefore may be eligible for relief under a newly enacted statute, (now) section 1172.75. After the trial court recalled defendant’s sentence in that case, defendant requested the court resentence him in his first case as well. The court denied that request. The court then vacated and set aside the sentence in the second case and granted defendant’s request to strike his enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for a resentencing hearing in both cases. We agree. Therefore, we vacate the court’s denial order and remand for recall and resentencing in accordance with section 1172.75.