People v. Gangl CA3

Filed 9/10/21 P. v. Gangl CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092436

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16FE006058)

v.

ROBERT MICHAEL GANGL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Robert Michael Gangl was convicted of multiple offenses after he stole a car and then stole the arresting officer’s patrol vehicle, led officers on a high-speed chase, and eventually robbed a man in his own home as defendant tried to elude capture.1 He was originally sentenced to 18 years in state prison. In a partially published decision, we affirmed defendant’s convictions, stayed the sentence on one count under Penal Code2 section 654, and remanded for resentencing because the trial court was unaware of

1 Defendant was convicted of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, possession of a firearm by a felon, unlawful possession of ammunition, unlawful driving or taking of a law enforcement vehicle, assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon, evading a peace, first degree robbery, misdemeanor vandalism, providing false identification to the police, and possession of burglary tools. 2 Further undesignated section references are to this code.

1

its discretion to impose concurrent sentences for defendant’s multiple serious and violent felony convictions. (See People v. Gangl (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 58, 69-72.) Following issuance of the remittitur and before being resentenced, defendant filed an application for mental health diversion under section 1001.36. The People opposed mental health diversion and requested that the court again impose consecutive terms for his strike offenses. Defendant requested concurrent sentencing in the event the trial court did not grant pretrial diversion. After considering the parties’ briefs and their arguments at a hearing on the application for mental health diversion, as well as a statement from defendant, the court denied the application. The court found that defendant had failed to show he met several of the qualifying criteria under section 1001.36. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 14 years two months in state prison. The court exercised its discretion to impose concurrent sentences on defendant’s strike convictions (counts five and seven), imposed consecutive one-third the midterm sentences for the remaining unstayed nonserious and nonviolent felonies (counts one, two, three, and four), imposed a full midterm on count six, which was stayed under section 654, a stayed a six-month sentence on the count twelve misdemeanor, and a consecutive one month sentence each on misdemeanors in counts thirteen and fourteen. The court imposed mandatory assessments and minimum restitution fines; but otherwise waived any further fees and fines. Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.