People v. Hang CA2/5

Filed 6/5/15 P. v. Hang CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B258182

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA398512) v.

HANG et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver. Affirmed with modifications. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Kevin Steven Hang. Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Javier Hernandez. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Timothy M. Weiner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellants Kevin S. Hang and Javier Hernandez were each convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of battery with serious bodily injury in violation of Penal Code 1 section 243, subdivision (b). Hernandez was also convicted of one count of making a criminal threat in violation of section 422, subdivision (a). The jury found true the allegations that appellants personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). The jury also found true the allegation that Hernandez had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced Hang to the mid-term of three years in state prison. The court also sentenced Hernandez to the mid-term of three years for the battery conviction, plus a concurrent term for the criminal threat. The court struck Hernandez’s section 667.5 enhancement. Appellants appeal from the judgment of conviction. Hernandez contends the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the sentence actually imposed by the trial court for his criminal threat conviction, and his presentence custody credits must be corrected as well. Both appellants contend the great bodily injury enhancement must be stricken. Respondent agrees with these contentions, and additionally points out that Hang is entitled to additional presentence custody credits as well. We agree, and order the abstract of judgment corrected as set forth in more detail in the disposition. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.