People v. Moultrie CA5

Filed 6/15/22 P. v. Moultrie 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080794 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CR-05127-RF) v.

TREVON HASHEEM MOULTRIE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Jeanne Schechter, Judge. William W. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill, Melissa Lipon and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION A jury convicted appellant Trevon Hasheem Moultrie of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant with a prior conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1)) (corporal injury), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), and other related offenses and enhancements. The court sentenced appellant to 17 years eight months in state prison. In supplemental briefing, appellant contends the matter should be remanded for resentencing in light of newly enacted legislation, including Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). Respondent concedes remand is appropriate. We accept respondent’s concession and remand the matter for resentencing. Appellant also contends that his sentences for corporal injury and criminal threats should have been stayed pursuant to section 654, and that the imposition of certain court fees violated his rights to equal protection and due process. Because appellant must be fully resentenced, we need not address the merits of these claims. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Merced County District Attorney’s Office filed an information charging appellant with robbery (§ 211; count 1), inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant with a prior conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1); count 2), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 3), residential burglary (§ 459; count 4), and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a), count 5). The information further alleged appellant suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The jury found appellant guilty of all counts, except for the burglary count on which it could not reach a verdict. Following trial, the court granted the People’s motion