People v. Grogan CA2/5

Filed 11/17/15 P. v. Grogan CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B258945

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA086514) v.

ROBERT ANTHONY GROGAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Suzette Clover, Judge. Affirmed in part, modified, and remanded. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Robert Anthony Grogan (defendant) was convicted of three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 2111), one count of first degree burglary (§ 459), and two counts of false imprisonment (§ 236). On appeal, defendant contends that the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement that it imposed seven prior prison term enhancements instead of eight as reflected in the abstract of judgment; the trial court erred in staying imposition of sentence on five prior prison term one-year enhancements rather than striking imposition of sentence on them; and the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect a reduced amount for the restitution and parole revocation fines, or the matter should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing. We remand the matter for the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement that it imposed seven prior prison term enhancements, and that restitution and parole revocation fines are each $240; and to exercise its discretion under section 667.5, subdivision (b) to either impose sentence on the five prior prison term enhancements or strike imposition of sentence on them. We otherwise affirm the judgment.