California Court of Appeal May 31, 2013 No. D061320Unpublished
Filed 5/31/13 P. v. Chestang CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D061320
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD235702)
TYRECE RENE CHESTANG,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Louis R.
Hanoian, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Ronald A.
Jakob, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Tyrece Rene Chestang and a cohort robbed and beat two individuals while
Chestang was armed with a handgun and his cohort brandished a knife. An information
charged the men with two counts of first degree robbery (counts 1 and 2) and one count
of attempting to dissuade a witness (count 3). It was alleged that Chestang personally
used a firearm in the commission of both robberies and that his cohort personally used a
Where, as here, a firearm use enhancement is appended to a crime in which an
indeterminate term is imposed, it must be applied at full strength because the fact that the
enhancement is determinate does not render it subordinate within the meaning of section
1170.1. (Lyons, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 1229.) Accordingly, the abstract of
judgment must be amended to add a full-term firearm use enhancement to Chestang's
indeterminate term under the Three Strikes Law. (Id. at p. 1226; People v. Dotson (1997)
16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6 [unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect a consecutive ten-year term for the Penal Code
section 12022.53, subdivision (b) allegation attached to count 2. As so modified, the
judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of
judgment reflecting this modification and forward it to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
MCINTYRE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's untimely and equivocal motion for self-representation and that the trial court erred by failing to impose a full-strength firearm enhancement on a subordinate count.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's Faretta motion?
Did the trial court impose an unauthorized sentence by applying the one-third sentencing rule to a firearm enhancement attached to an indeterminate term?
Disposition. Affirmed as modified.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because Chestang's request to represent himself was untimely and equivocal, the court acted well within its discretion when it denied the motion.”
“Where, as here, a firearm use enhancement is appended to a crime in which an indeterminate term is imposed, it must be applied at full strength”