People v. Schumm CA4/1

Filed 9/15/21 P. v. Schumm CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076357

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF117696)

DAVID HENRY SCHUMM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Ronald L. Taylor, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Riverside Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.). Affirmed with directions. Jonathan P. Milberg for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Seth M. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

David Henry Schumm was convicted of carjacking and several other felonies in 2007. The following year the trial court sentenced Schumm to 42 years and four months to life in prison. In May 2018, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the trial court noting errors in the abstract of judgment, leading to a new sentencing hearing. The court resentenced Schumm to 30 years to life and a new abstract of judgment was filed on July 22, 2019. Schumm appealed that judgment, which was subsequently amended twice more. In his opening brief, Schumm asserts the CDCR is incorrectly interpreting his sentence as a third strike, preventing eligibility for a Youth Offender Parole Hearing (YOPH), and resulting in an “unauthorized” sentence requiring reversal. In the respondent’s brief, the Attorney General agrees the CDCR has incorrectly interpreted the sentence imposed in 2019 and requests this court order an amendment to the abstract of judgment to correct the clerical error. In reply, Schumm’s counsel states that after conferring with the Attorney General’s office, he contacted the CDCR and it indicated the error has now been rectified. As a result, Schumm abandons his request for reversal and joins the Attorney General’s request for an opinion conforming the abstract of judgment to the trial court’s sentence. As explained below, we agree with the parties that the court’s resentencing order should be affirmed with directions to the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to conform to the sentence actually imposed on Schumm. BACKGROUND Schumm and a codefendant were charged with various crimes related to the theft of a truck at gunpoint. In 2007, a jury convicted Schumm of