People v. Peerman CA3

Filed 6/16/16 P. v. Peerman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C079423

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14F1717)

DARIN LEROY PEERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Darin Leroy Peerman appeals from the trial court’s orders granting his Penal Code section 1170.181 petition for resentencing. He contends the court erred in believing it was required to impose the same term as the stipulated sentence that was part of defendant’s plea agreement. He additionally contends the sentence violates the provision in section 1170.18 prohibiting a court from imposing a greater term than the original when resentencing. Agreeing with the first contention and declining to reach the second, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND We dispense with a recitation of the facts of defendant’s crimes as they are unnecessary to resolve this appeal. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike allegation. He was sentenced to serve a stipulated term of four years in state prison, consisting of a 16-month low term on the methamphetamine charge, doubled to 32 months, and a consecutive 8 months on the firearm charge, doubled to 16 months. Defendant subsequently filed a section 1170.18 petition seeking resentencing on the possession of methamphetamine charge. The trial court designated possession of methamphetamine a misdemeanor and resentenced defendant on the felon in possession count. The court imposed a middle term of two years, doubled to four with the strike. It gave the following reasons for the decision: “I don’t know that I have to find any mitigating or aggravating circumstances since I’m imposing the mid term. He does have a serious history, including the strike, although that’s not part of the analysis. Other than that, he’s been to prison, he’s violated parole, and he stipulated to a four-year term. That’s pretty much the key: It was never set for purposes of the court to determine what to do, that’s what the parties agreed to. So, I just wanted to make sure you made your record on that because I know there’s still a lot of issues on Prop. 47[2] that are up in the air.”