People v. Doulphus CA3

Filed 11/26/24 P. v. Doulphus CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098549

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR88403)

v.

CHASE ALAN DOULPHUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2016, defendant Chase Alan Doulphus pled guilty to three counts of robbery and one count of voluntary manslaughter and admitted three firearm enhancements related to the robbery counts. The trial court sentenced him to 42 years four months in state prison. In 2022, defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court struck his manslaughter conviction and resentenced him to 38

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

1

years four months. Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to dismiss any of the firearm enhancements or strike any associated punishment, which accounted for the bulk of his new sentence. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion because substantial evidence supports its finding that dismissal of the enhancements would endanger public safety. In his reply brief, defendant also argued the trial court erred in failing to calculate and award him custody credits after resentencing. We asked the People for supplemental briefing on that issue and they properly conceded the issue. We will direct the trial court to recalculate custody credits and amend the abstract of judgment. Finding no other error, we will otherwise affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, codefendant Roger Bounnhaseng worked on a marijuana farm with the victims, S.R, K.V., and G.P.2 Bounnhaseng also lived on the farm in a fifth-wheel trailer with S.R. and G.P. One day, Bounnhaseng told G.P. he was leaving the farm and would return later. The next morning, Bounnhaseng returned to the farm with defendant and defendant’s brother, Alan Doulphus.3 Bounnhaseng, Alan, and defendant went to the trailer where S.R. and G.P. were sleeping, and Bounnhaseng woke them up by throwing zip-ties on them and telling them to tie themselves up. Because the victims knew Bounnhaseng, they thought it was a joke until they walked out of the trailer and saw defendant and Alan, respectively, armed with a shotgun and a rifle. Once outside, S.R.’s and G.P.’s hands were placed behind their backs, their wrists zip-tied, with duct-tape on