People v. Doulphus CA3

Filed 1/17/25 P. v. Doulphus CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097692

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR88402)

v.

ALAN DUANE DOULPHUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Alan Duane Doulphus pled guilty to three counts of robbery and, following resentencing, now appeals his 25-year prison sentence, which includes a 20- year enhancement under Penal Code1 section 12022.53, subdivision (c), for intentionally discharging a firearm in the commission of a robbery. He raises eight claims of sentencing error. We reject those claims. In supplemental briefing, he argues the trial court erred in failing to calculate and award custody credits at resentencing. The People agree, and so do we. Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to calculate custody

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

credits and amend the abstract of judgment. We will affirm the judgment in all other respects. BACKGROUND In an earlier appeal, a different panel of this court stated the underlying facts of Doulphus’s crimes. Doulphus and two codefendants, each armed with a firearm, entered a trailer on a marijuana farm in Tehama County and bound three workers with duct tape and zip ties. When one of the workers broke free and tried to escape, Doulphus and one of his codefendants shot at him. The codefendant’s shots struck and killed the man. (People v. Doulphus (Sept. 28, 2018, C082044) [nonpub. opn.].) Doulphus pled guilty to three counts of robbery, each with a section 12022.53, subdivision (c) enhancement for discharging a firearm, and to one count of voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 42 years four months in state prison. There was no stipulated term as part of the plea agreement. At sentencing, the trial court rejected Doulphus’s argument for a mitigated term for the principal robbery conviction, instead imposing an aggravated five-year term for that count as part of the 42-year four-month total term. (People v. Doulphus (June 30, 2022, C089263) [nonpub. opn.].) In Doulphus’s first appeal, the panel remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620, and otherwise affirmed. On remand, the trial court struck the firearm enhancements as to two of the robbery counts, for a total term of 29 years. When counsel suggested the trial court could dismiss or reduce the enhancements, the trial court replied that it could strike an enhancement but not reduce it. Later, in People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 697 our Supreme Court ruled that section 12022.53, subdivision (h) not only gives a trial court the authority to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement, but also to impose a lesser firearm enhancement. Accordingly, in Doulphus’s second appeal, a different panel of this court remanded the matter for reconsideration of Doulphus’s request to dismiss or reduce the sole remaining section 12022.53, subdivision (c) firearm