People v. Douglas CA3

Filed 12/7/21 P. v. Douglas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093370

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F00422 )

v.

TYRONE ARTHUR DOUGLAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Tyrone Arthur Douglas appeals the trial court’s denial of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) recommendation under Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) (section 1170 (d)(1)), that the trial court consider recalling defendant’s sentence and resentencing him. Defendant contends the trial court

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

abused its discretion in denying the recommendation by relying solely on the facts of his conviction, without considering postconviction factors. We requested supplemental briefing from the parties on the effect of the newly enacted legislation, Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 1540), on defendant’s appeal, including specifically whether reversal of the order is required to allow the trial court to apply the presumption of this new legislation. (Stats. 2021, ch. 719, §§ 1-7). Because the measure will likely take effect before this case is final, the People request we reverse and remand for reconsideration the request after the new law takes effect. We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND2 Defendant and his then-girlfriend got into a fight one night, during which he hit her, repeatedly threatened to kill her, refused to let her leave the apartment, and took her phone and wallet from her purse. (People v. Douglas (Dec. 18, 2017, C076525) [nonpub. opn.] [at pp. 2-3].)3 A jury found defendant guilty of grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)), making a criminal threat (§ 422), false imprisonment (§ 236), and misdemeanor domestic battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)). (Douglas, [at p. 1].) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true a prior serious felony conviction. (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1170.12, subds. (b)-(i).) (Douglas, [at pp. 1-2].) On appeal, we reduced defendant’s conviction for grand theft from a person to misdemeanor petty theft, and otherwise affirmed the conviction. (Id. [at pp. 2, 27].) Ultimately, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 13 years eight months in prison.