People v. Hauptman CA5

Filed 5/6/22 P. v. Hauptman CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F081862 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Kern Super. Ct. No. BF172606A) v.

TYLER HAUPTMAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Gary T. Friedman and John S. Somers, Judges.† Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J. † Judge Friedman presided over the jury trial; Judge Somers presided over the October 11, 2018, sentencing hearing and the September 29, 2020, hearing on remand.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Tyler Hauptman was convicted of first degree residential burglary and sentenced to state prison. In his first appeal, we remanded the matter for the trial court to consider whether it should exercise its discretion and strike the prior serious felony enhancement based on amendments to Penal Code1 section 667, subdivision (a), stay a concurrent term, and for the opportunity to raise any issues about the imposition of fines and fees, and otherwise affirmed. On remand, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to stay the enhancement, defendant did not raise any issues about the fines and fees, and the court stayed the concurrent term previously imposed. The court declined to recalculate defendant’s actual time in custody and deferred the calculation to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In this appeal, the parties agree the matter must again be remanded for the trial court to calculate his actual time credits. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 11, 2018, defendant was arrested after he was seen leaving an apartment that had just been burglarized. The resident’s stolen goods were found three feet away from where he was initially detained. On September 13, 2018, after a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged of count 1, first degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a)); and count 3, misdemeanor receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). The court found true the allegations that he had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), one prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).