People v. Randall CA5

Filed 8/29/23 P. v. Randall 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085042 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F19905858) v.

JAMES LEE RANDALL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. F. Brian Alvarez, Judge. Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Galen N. Farris, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

This case returns to our court following a remand for resentencing ordered in the direct appeal brought by defendant James Lee Randall. (People v. Randall (June 27, 2022, F080614) [nonpub. opn.].)1 Resentencing was declared necessary due to recent legislative changes that could have resulted in a shorter sentence for defendant. The only issues before this court following resentencing are whether the trial court improperly imposed the upper term for a domestic violence conviction because an incorrect standard was relied upon and whether the calculation of postsentence custody credits was correct. Our review of the record and the new sentence imposed causes us to conclude defendant has failed to show the choice of the upper term was irrational or arbitrary. However, the matter is remanded as to the calculation of defendant’s postsentence custody credits. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY This case involves an act of domestic violence defendant committed on his long-standing girlfriend in 2019. Defendant was accused of hitting his girlfriend during an argument and causing her left eye to swell shut. The jury not only found defendant guilty of the charge of inflicting corporal injury upon a former cohabitant, but also found he inflicted great bodily injury during that episode. A more detailed summary of the facts involved in this case can be found in this court’s opinion in People v. Randall, supra, F080614. Again, on June 27, 2022, this court issued its opinion affirming defendant’s convictions for inflicting corporal injury on a former spouse or cohabitant (the domestic violence charge) and contempt of court, but remanded the matter so that defendant could be resentenced under amended versions of Penal Code2 sections 1170 and 1385. Defendant was resentenced on October 3, 2022.