People v. Hall CA2/4

Filed 4/28/25 P. v. Hall CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B332004

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA059162 v.

NATHAN HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lauren Weis Birnstein, Judge. Affirmed. Heather L. Beugen, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2007, a jury convicted defendant Nathan Hall of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted murder (§ 664/187, subd. (a)). The jury further found that Hall personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon during the commission of the offenses (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Hall to 15 years to life in state prison on the murder count, a consecutive life term on the attempted murder count, and imposed a one-year deadly weapon enhancement on that count, plus four one-year prior prison term enhancements. In June 2023, Hall filed a motion under section 1172.75 to strike the four one-year prior prison enhancements. At the resentencing hearing,2 the trial court struck the four one-year prior prison term enhancements under section 1172.75, but stated the one-year deadly weapon enhancement on the attempted murder “remains.” On appeal, Hall contends remand for a new sentencing hearing is required. He argues that the record does not establish the trial court was aware of its discretion to strike the deadly weapon enhancement pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (c). We see no basis for remand on this silent record. Accordingly, we affirm.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Because the parties failed to include the reporter’s transcript of the resentencing hearing in the appellate record, we directed the trial court to file it. On our own motion, we augmented the record to include the missing transcript. Appellate counsel is advised, moving forward, to submit a complete record on appeal to avoid unnecessary delay in resolving cases.