People v. Moreland CA2/4

Filed 6/27/22 P. v. Moreland CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B313686

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA045898)

v.

DAVID WAYNE MORELAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Noah P. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION In 2001, a jury convicted appellant David Wayne Moreland of kidnapping to commit robbery, carjacking, possession of a firearm by a felon, and making terrorist threats. He was sentenced to 16 years plus life in prison, with eligibility for parole in October 2027. In November 2020, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended that the trial court recall appellant’s sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1),1 and resentence him based on his exemplary conduct and commitment to rehabilitation. The trial court declined to recall the sentence. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s denial of the Secretary’s recommendation. While this appeal was pending, Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1540) was signed into law in October 2021 and became effective on January 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021, ch. 719.) The bill moved the recall and resentencing provisions of section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) to a new section, 1170.03, and revised its terms. Both appellant and respondent Attorney General ask this court to reverse and remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the Secretary's recommendation under section 1170.03. We grant the request in the interest of judicial economy, and accordingly reverse and remand. As such, appellant’s additional contentions raised under the former statute are moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Conviction We summarize the factual and procedural history of appellant’s crime as set forth in our prior unpublished opinion, People v. Moreland (Dec. 27, 2001, B149370) [nonpub. opn.]. The victim was driving his van in Long Beach on the evening of July 29, 2000. When the vehicle in front of him, a black Cadillac, came to a sudden stop, the victim’s van collided with the back of the Cadillac. The driver of the Cadillac got out, along with a passenger, who was later identified as appellant. The victim also exited his vehicle. The driver of the Cadillac demanded money from the victim to fix the dent in the Cadillac.