People v. Huntley CA3

Filed 1/26/22 P. v. Huntley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093742

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF1602140)

v.

BRADFORD STEELE HUNTLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

In sentencing defendant Bradford Steele Huntley to an aggregate five-year term, the trial court imposed a consecutive term for a weapon enhancement and a concurrent term for its related substantive offense. Defendant argues, and the People concede, this was in error. We agree. The parties disagree, however, on the appropriate remedy. Defendant urges us to modify the sentence to impose a concurrent term on the enhancement. The People contend we should remand the matter for resentencing, provided the new sentence does not exceed the original. We agree with the People. We shall vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

1

BACKGROUND While under a restraining order prohibiting contact with his ex-girlfriend, defendant followed her and her new boyfriend into her house. Defendant, unarmed, opened the sliding glass door, walked in, and yelled at her new boyfriend to leave. Ex- girlfriend told defendant to leave, shutting the door behind him. Later, outside, defendant approached the couple, brandishing a wrench, stating, “I’m going to fuck you up.” The new boyfriend called the police, and defendant left. The People charged defendant with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),1 with an allegation that a person other than an accomplice was present at the time of the offense (§ 667.5, subd. (a)(21)); stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (b)); and two counts of making criminal threats (§ 422), with allegations that defendant used a deadly weapon at the time of offenses (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant pleaded no contest to first degree burglary and a count of making criminal threats against the new boyfriend, admitting the attendant enhancements to each offense. In accordance with the plea, after defendant completed a drug treatment program, the trial court dismissed the remaining charges and held a hearing to determine his eligibility for probation, placing him on formal probation for three years. Following multiple violations of probation, the trial court sentenced defendant to a five-year term consisting of four years for the burglary, a concurrent term of two years for the criminal threats, and a consecutive term of one year for the weapon enhancement. DISCUSSION The parties agree the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive term on the weapon enhancement while imposing a concurrent term on the related criminal threats sentence. Defendant asks us to modify the sentence to impose a concurrent term on the