People v. Mitchell CA2/2

Filed 1/9/25 P. v. Mitchell CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B335904

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA422497) v.

BERNARD MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Sally Patrone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt Bloomfield and Stefanie Yee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

This is the fourth time we consider the sentencing of Bernard Mitchell for his 2013 robbery conviction. In this appeal, the People concede that remand is appropriate in one respect, because the trial court did not recognize the full scope of his discretion in resentencing, and thus did not rule on several of Mitchell’s requests. We agree, and reverse and remand for a full resentencing. However, we disagree with Mitchell’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request to strike any of the firearm enhancements or impose a lesser enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, 1 subdivision (h). Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the ruling. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts In August 2013 and December 2013, defendant and one other person entered two different One West Bank locations in Los Angeles. Each time, they ordered bank employees, at gunpoint, to lie on the ground. They took the amount of $73,740 in cash from the August robbery and $63,800 in cash from the December robbery. II. Procedural History As explained in our prior opinions, a jury convicted Mitchell of six counts of second degree robbery, one for each of the victims. The jury also found true six enhancements for the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), as well as an enhancement for