People v. Bratcher CA1/1

Filed 9/19/25 P. v. Bratcher CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170429 v. HASSAN LEE BRATCHER, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 17-CR-012238) Defendant and Appellant.

I. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 A jury found Hassan Lee Bratcher guilty of kidnapping and raping a pregnant woman with disabilities, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life in state prison. In a prior appeal, we affirmed the judgment but remanded for a hearing to correct errors in Bratcher’s probation report. (People v. Bratcher (June 14, 2022, as modified July 1, 2022, A159493) [nonpub. opn.].) In this appeal, Bratcher claims the errors in his probation report were not fully corrected, and he is now entitled to resentencing per an amendment to Penal Code section 654.2

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud.

Admin., § 8.1.) We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The People concede that the trial court corrected errors in the criminal history section of Bratcher’s probation report but failed to correct other sections of the report that incorporate the same errors. They urge, however, that the issue is forfeited because Bratcher’s counsel agreed to certain corrections but failed to advise the court of additional errors. We will consider the issue despite any forfeiture, especially since Bratcher objected that he was not permitted to review the proposed corrections before the court made its order. Ultimately, we again remand the matter for the court to correct remaining inaccuracies in the probation report and thus avoid the risk that lingering errors might impact future prison and parole determinations.3 Bratcher claims he is also entitled to resentencing. The trial court sentenced him pursuant to section 654, which prohibits punishing crimes arising from a single, indivisible course of conduct “ ‘under more than one provision’ of law.” (People v. Midell (Aug. 28, 2025, A168758) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2025 WL 2476475, at