People v. Wekerle CA4/1

Filed 12/16/25 P. v. Wekerle CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085092

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN ANTHONY WEKERLE, (Super. Ct. No. RIF2204240)

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Gail A. O’Rane, Judge. Reversed and remanded for resentencing. Bruce Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene Sevidal, Acting Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Alan L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Steven Anthony Wekerle appeals from a judgment resentencing him following the issuance of our opinion in People v. Wekerle (Apr. 22, 2024, D083429, [nonpub. opn.]) (Wekerle). Wekerle contends, and the People concede, that the trial court prejudicially erred by conducting the 1

resentencing hearing in his absence. As explained below, we agree and reverse the judgment and remand for a new resentencing hearing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 A jury convicted Wekerle on four counts, including grand theft from a

person (Pen. Code,2 § 487, subd. (c), count 5). The trial court imposed a total term of 11 years, four months, including an eight-month consecutive term for count 5. On appeal, we modified Wekerle’s conviction on count 5 by reducing it to a misdemeanor petty theft offense, affirmed the remainder of the judgment, and then remanded the matter for resentencing. (Wekerle, supra, D083429.) At a July 16, 2024 hearing regarding resentencing, Wekerle’s counsel informed the court that Wekerle had requested that he be present at any and all hearings. She stated that she had “pass[ed] up three transportation orders [for Wekerle]” and asked the court to allow him to be present and continue the resentencing hearing until September 9. The court replied, “He doesn’t have a right to be present because I’m not increasing his time at all. I don’t know why I couldn’t just sentence him on the misdemeanor to concurrent time, and then we’re done.” The court further stated, “I just don’t know that he necessarily has a right because the sentence is not being changed in any significant way. It’s actually going to be less time presuming that that count was run consecutive. But if you want me to sign it and order him here, I will.” Wekerle’s counsel replied, “I know he will want to be here. Otherwise, he’ll send letters.” The court then continued the hearing until