People v. Woodward CA3

Filed 5/11/22 P. v. Woodward CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094232

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F17000394)

v.

STEPHEN NICHOLAS WOODWARD, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In July 2018, a jury found defendant Stephen Nicholas Woodward, Jr., guilty of corporal injury to a spouse, false imprisonment, attempted second degree robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. The jury also found true: (1) that -- as to all four counts -- defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of Penal Code1 section 12022.7, subdivision (e); and (2) that during the commission of

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

corporal injury to his spouse, defendant personally used a baseball bat as a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). In August 2018, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of nine years in state prison, consisting of: (1) the upper term of four years for the corporal injury offense; (2) the middle term of four years for the great bodily injury enhancement to the corporal injury offense; and (3) one year for the deadly weapon enhancement to the corporal injury offense. The trial court imposed a concurrent sentence on the attempted robbery offense, and -- pursuant to section 654 -- imposed and stayed sentences for the remaining offenses. The trial court calculated 284 days of credit and ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine, a suspended parole revocation restitution fine of $300, $160 in court operations assessments, $120 in court facility fees, and a booking fee of $25. Defendant did not appeal. In May 2020, a correctional case records analyst at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) sent correspondence to the trial court, observing, inter alia, that the sentence imposed for the attempted robbery offense was unlawful. (See § 213, subd. (b) [“Notwithstanding [§] 664, attempted robbery in violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison”].) In April 2021, the trial court held a resentencing hearing in light of the correspondence from the Department. Before hearing from the parties, the trial court explained its “intended” sentence of nine years for the offense of corporal injury to a spouse and associated enhancements. Defense counsel said he had “no issue with [the trial court’s] calculations,” but explained defendant was “asking the [trial] [c]ourt to not impose the personal use” of a deadly weapon enhancement. Defendant explained he “agree[d] to the eight years with the [great bodily injury] enhancement.” But he disagreed with imposition of “th[e] personal use of a deadly weapon enhancement