People v. Robinson CA3

Filed 12/15/21 P. v. Robinson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092166

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF956265)

v.

RUSLEY ROBINSON, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal following the trial court’s resentencing of defendant Rusley Robinson, Jr., pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) (statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code), comes to us ostensibly pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS We granted defendant’s request to incorporate the record on appeal in case No. C024067, and we take this summary directly from our previous opinion. (People v. Robinson (Apr. 22, 1997, C024067) [nonpub. opn.]).

1

In 1996, a jury convicted defendant of seven counts of attempted murder (counts one through seven), seven counts of assault with a deadly weapon with a firearm (counts eight through fourteen), one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle (count fifteen), and two counts of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (counts sixteen and seventeen), and found true the enhancement allegations that defendant personally used a firearm in commission of the attempted murders and had a prior serious felony conviction. (People v. Robinson, supra, C024067 at pp. 1-2.) The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 34 years and eight months. (Id. at p. 2.) We affirmed the convictions and special findings but concluded there was sentencing error. We vacated the sentence and remanded to the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether to sentence the counts involving multiple victims concurrently or consecutively and to impose the required consecutive term on count sixteen. (Id. at pp. 4, 14-18.) On remand in 1997, defendant was represented by counsel at the resentencing. The trial court sentenced defendant to the same aggregate term of 34 years and eight months, concluding it did not need to resentence on the counts involving multiple victims, as the sentence appropriately reflected defendant’s culpability, and again imposed a concurrent term on count sixteen. In 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent the trial court a letter noting various errors and conflicts in the 1997 abstract of judgment and seeking correction. The letter also indicated that the resentencing had not complied with our directions on remand to impose a consecutive sentence on count sixteen. Defendant was assigned counsel from the public defender’s office, who filed a motion to resentence and strike or modify the firearm enhancement under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). The trial court subsequently granted defendant’s motion to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562]. Defendant also filed a motion to vacate a void judgment.