People v. Robinson CA3

Filed 5/28/25 P. v. Robinson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C100245

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE000471)

v.

REMY ROBINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Remy Robinson not guilty of murder but guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter (count one) and possession of a firearm by a person who has previously been convicted of a felony (count two). The jury found that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of count one (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a))1 and that he was armed in the commission of count two (§§ 667,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had been convicted of two prior strikes. The court struck the first strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497 and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 34 years and eight months.2 The trial court did not discuss fines and fees at sentencing. On appeal, defendant argues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by excluding an out-of-court statement by the victim’s girlfriend that she handed a gun to the victim prior to his being shot; (2) the trial court violated his right to due process and section 654 when it imposed consecutive sentences for counts one and two; and (3) we must order fines and fees not orally imposed at sentencing stricken from the abstract of judgment. The People concede that section 654 required the trial court to stay the sentence on either count one or count two. We accept the People’s concession and remand for a full resentencing consistent with this opinion. At resentencing, the court may not, for the first time, impose a restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b) or a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45. I. BACKGROUND Defendant and the victim were part of an argument on a residential street. The victim’s girlfriend left the area and returned with a gun that she gave to the victim. Defendant thereafter shot the victim, who died of multiple gunshot wounds. II. DISCUSSION A. The Victim’s Girlfriend’s Hearsay Statement 1. Motion in Limine Defendant moved in limine to introduce, as a statement against interest under Evidence Code section 1230, the victim’s girlfriend’s statement to law enforcement that