P. v. Crawford CA4/1

Filed 3/13/13 P. v. Crawford CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D060532, D060534

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. RIF1101501, RIF150644) DARRYL PIERRE CRAWFORD, ORDER MODIFYING OPINION Defendant and Appellant. AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 19, 2013, be modified as

follows:

1. On page 13, before the paragraph beginning "One consequence of our

conclusion," insert the following five new paragraphs:

In a petition for rehearing, Crawford argues the sentence imposed in the 2010 case was a conditional sentence as a matter of law, citing Oster v. Municipal Court (1955) 45 Cal.2d 134 (Oster) and cases that have applied it. According to Crawford, it "is not proper for this Court to fail to address Oster, which is directly on point" and "requires the Court to find [sic] that the sentence that was pronounced in the 2010 case was a conditional sentence." We disagree.

The simple answer to Crawford's contentions is that Oster, supra, 45 Cal.2d 134, and the cases applying it are not "directly on point." None of those cases considered the issue here: whether a "wobbler" offense is a felony or a misdemeanor when the court imposes a state prison sentence but stays execution for one year to allow the defendant to undergo psychiatric treatment. "[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered." (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176.)