People v. Pardue CA3

Filed 11/25/24 P. v. Pardue CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C098985

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08F01893)

SHONN LYNN PARDUE,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Shonn Lynn Pardue of assault with a firearm, kidnapping, making criminal threats, attempted criminal threats, and unlawful possession of ammunition. It found true allegations that defendant used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury. The trial court found that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions and sentenced him to a determinate term of 11 years four months and an indeterminate term of 175 years to life in prison. In 2014, this court remanded for resentencing but otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Pardue (Apr. 21, 2014, C064864) [nonpub. opn.] (Pardue).) The trial court resentenced defendant to a determinate term of 24 years four months and an indeterminate term of 150 years to life.

1

In 2020, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) notified the trial court of a potential error in defendant’s sentence regarding one of the firearm enhancements. The trial court resentenced defendant to a determinate term of 30 years and it reduced the indeterminate term to 125 years to life. Although defendant had asked the trial court to dismiss the firearm enhancements in the interests of justice, the trial court did not do so. Defendant appeals from the most recent resentencing, arguing the trial court erred in declining to dismiss the firearm enhancements. Because defendant has not established error or an abuse of discretion, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Not all of the details of defendant’s underlying crimes are relevant to the contention in this appeal. It is sufficient to explain that defendant had a daughter with D.G., and when his relationship with D.G. ended in early 2008, he moved out of the home but became upset when he thought D.G. had a new boyfriend. Among other things, defendant held a gun to people, threatened to kill them, took his young daughter and others to another location, ransacked a bedroom, hit the suspected boyfriend with a gun, and later shot him in the leg. (Pardue, supra, C064864.) A jury convicted defendant of two counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)),1 three counts of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), three counts of making criminal threats (§ 422), two counts of attempted criminal threats (§§ 664/422), and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found true allegations that defendant used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In addition, the trial court found that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12.)