People v. Scott CA2/4
Filed 1/20/21 P. v. Scott CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B305711
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA433593 v.
KEVIN IBN SCOTT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Katherine Mader, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
In October 2019, we affirmed defendant and appellant Kevin Ibn Scott’s convictions for murder, attempted premeditated murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and possession of a firearm by a felon, but remanded the case to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike the firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h).1 On remand, the trial court held a hearing at which it chose not to strike the firearm enhancements. On appeal, Scott argues the trial court erred by denying his request to be present at the hearing. The Attorney General agrees that the trial court erred in this regard, and also notes the case must be remanded for a separate reason: the trial court erred by holding the hearing prior to issuance of the remittitur, at which point it lacked jurisdiction. We agree with the parties. On remand, the court shall hold a hearing to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivision (h). Scott shall have the right to assistance of counsel, and unless he chooses to waive it, the right to be present.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)