In Re Ramey

Opinion

COFFEE, J.

J.Frederick Daniel Ramey, petitioner, seeks review of a two-year sentence enhancement that was imposed upon him for committing a felony while out on bail. We find that, in the absence of a felony conviction for the original crime, the sentence enhancement should have been permanently stayed. We shall grant a writ of habeas corpus.

Facts

Ramey was arrested in Colorado for robbery. He was released on bail, committed a robbery in San Luis Obispo County, and was again arrested. The superior court sentenced him to three years in prison for the latter robbery. Ramey admitted that, at the time of the second robbery, he was on felony bail from Colorado. The sentencing court imposed a consecutive two-year enhancement, pursuant to Penal Code

1

section 12022.1. The enhancement was ordered stayed pending Ramey’s trial in Colorado. (§ 12022:1 subd. (d).)

Ramey was returned to Colorado to stand trial on the original robbery. He pled guilty to an amended charge, assault in the third degree, a misdemeanor.

2

Count 2 of the complaint was ordered dismissed. After he was sentenced and credited for time served, he was transported to California to serve the remainder of the San Luis Obispo sentence in state prison.

With the approach of Ramey’s release in California, the prison authorities communicated with respondent, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, reminding it that the stay should be vacated. On February 19, 1998, respondent court dissolved its stay of Ramey’s two-year enhancement.

[511]

Ramey brought a habeas corpus petition. He noted that his Colorado conviction was for a misdemeanor and, under the plain statutory language of section 12022.1, would not support the “while on felony bail” enhancement. The petition was denied by respondent court. It found that Ramey had admitted the section 12022.1 charge and thereby waived his right to complain of that enhancement. Ramey sought habeas corpus relief from this court. We have granted an order to show cause.