People v. Hunter CA5

Filed 10/10/25 P. v. Hunter CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088006 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF189100A) v.

DASHAUN DONTE HUNTER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John D. Oglesby, Judge. Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kemberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary, Ian Whitney and Hannah Janigian Chavez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Dashaun Donte Hunter was convicted by jury of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189),1 and the jury found true firearm use allegations pursuant to sections 12022.53, subdivision (d), and 12022.5, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced appellant to 15 years to life for the murder, and a 10-year determinate term for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a). The trial court stayed the sentence of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement allegation found true under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). We invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether section 12022.53, subdivision (j), authorized the trial court to stay the sentence on the section 12022.53, subdivision (d), firearm enhancement. The parties agree in their supplemental briefs the trial court was not authorized to stay the sentence on the section 12022.53, subdivision (d), firearm enhancement. The parties contend, and we agree, the appropriate remedy, in view of the trial court’s statements at sentencing, is for this court to modify the sentence by striking the section 12022.53, subdivision (d), enhancement. The sole remaining contention of error on appeal is that the abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects an indeterminate term of 10 years to life was imposed for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a), deviating from the oral pronouncement of judgment. The People concede this clerical error in the abstract of judgment. Here, too, we agree with the parties; the abstract of judgment must be amended accordingly. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.