People v. Sanders CA1/5

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. Sanders CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162710 v. RICKY SANDERS, (San Mateo County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SC077150A)

Defendant appeals following a remand from this court for resentencing on convictions of 44 felonies including second degree robbery, attempted second degree robbery, false imprisonment, criminal threats, assault with a firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, and mayhem, accompanied by firearm enhancements and prior serious felony allegations. (Pen. Code, §§ 203, 211, 212.5, subd. (c), 236, 422, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(2), 664, 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b) & (d), 667, subd. (a), 1170.12; id., former § 12021, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant complains of sentencing errors at his resentencing hearing and asserts that his motion for new trial was improperly denied based on a lack of jurisdiction. The People agree that another remand for resentencing is warranted but argue defendant’s new trial motion was properly denied. We agree with the parties that resentencing is required and remand for this purpose. We reject defendant’s

1

contention, however, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. BACKGROUND We summarize only the facts necessary to provide context and resolve this appeal. We incorporate by reference the opinion in defendant’s prior appeal (People v. Sanders (Oct. 19, 2016, A142875) [nonpub. opn.]). Defendant committed multiple armed robberies at numerous retail establishments over the course of an eight-month period in 2011. In February 2014, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of 16 counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5; counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31, 32, 36, 39, 41), nine counts of felon in possession of a firearm (id., former § 12021, subd. (a)(1); counts 3, 6, 9, 18, 23, 26, 30, 35, 44), five counts of attempted robbery (id., §§ 211, 212.5, 664; counts 19, 20, 24, 27, 28), five counts of assault with a firearm (id., § 245, subd. (a); counts 15, 25, 29, 38, 40), seven counts of felony false imprisonment (id., § 236; counts 16, 21, 22, 33, 34, 42, 43), one count of criminal threats (id., § 422; count 17), and one count of mayhem (id., § 203; count 37). The jury found true firearm use enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) as to the assault, false imprisonment, and criminal threats counts (counts 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 29, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 43). The jury also found true firearm use enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivision (b) as to the robbery and attempted robbery counts (counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 39, 41). As to one of the robbery counts and the mayhem count (counts 36, 37), the jury found defendant intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The trial court determined that defendant suffered four prior convictions for purposes of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 1170.12) and