People v. Young CA3

Filed 10/11/23 P. v. Young CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096971

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE009629)

v.

EDDIE YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found several firearm and great bodily injury enhancements true as part of its verdict, defendant Eddie Young successfully argued at his sentencing that one of those enhancements should be dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) On appeal, both parties seek remand but for different reasons. Defendant argues trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to argue for dismissal of a second enhancement under section 1385. The People disagree but seek

1

remand so the trial court may delineate the basis for certain penalty assessments that were included in the abstract of judgment but not orally pronounced. We conclude that defendant has established ineffective assistance of counsel as to his sentencing. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In June 2020, Robert C. was walking down an alleyway when he was approached by defendant and two others in a car. Defendant got out of the car and patted Robert down like he was looking for something. Defendant then turned around, as though he was going to walk away, but then stopped and shot Robert in the chest. A jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), and unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29820). The jury further found that: (1) the attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation (§ 664, subd. (a)); (2) as to attempted murder and attempted robbery, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), as well as finding true lesser firearm enhancements (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b)-(c)); and (3) as to assault with a semiautomatic firearm, defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicted great bodily injury causing paralysis (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the following six aggravating circumstances true: (1) the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness (California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)) (rule citations that follow are to the California Rules of Court); (2) defendant engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society (rule 4.421(b)(1)); (3) defendant’s sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2)); (4)