People v. Manning CA4/3

Filed 12/21/21 P. v. Manning CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060297

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18WF2522)

DARION LAMAR MANNING, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheryl L. Leininger, Judge. Sentence vacated and matter remanded with directions. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

INTRODUCTION Darion Lamar Manning, pursuant to a negotiated agreement, pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree robbery, admitted an enhancement allegation for being armed with a firearm when he committed the robberies, and admitted a prior conviction for robbery. He was sentenced to the agreed-upon term of 13 years. The trial court, upon receiving a notice of sentencing error from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the CDCR), resentenced Manning to a term of 12 years four months. In this appeal, Manning argues his sentence must be vacated because he was denied his constitutional right to be present at the resentencing hearing. The Attorney General concedes this issue. The Attorney General argues, however, that the sentence imposed was legally unauthorized because the trial court did not impose the full base term on both counts. We agree. We shall vacate the sentence and remand with directions for resentencing that are explained in the disposition. BACKGROUND In June 2020, Manning pleaded guilty to two counts (counts 1 and 2) of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). (Further code references are to the Penal Code.) For each count, Manning admitted allegations that he was armed with a firearm when he committed the robberies. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) He also admitted allegations that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(1)). The parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of 13 years in prison, to be served concurrently with a sentence Manning was serving that had been imposed in Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. BA462093-02 (the Los Angeles case). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court calculated the 13-year sentence as follows: (1) upper term of five years on count one, plus one year for the firearm enhancement alleged under section 12022, subdivision (a)(1); (2) one third the midterm of three years (one year) on count two, plus one year for the firearm enhancement alleged