People v. Wyatt CA3

Filed 12/5/23 P. v. Wyatt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C098249

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 06F7071, 07F1009) RICHARD LEIGH WYATT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Officers found defendant Richard Leigh Wyatt in possession of methamphetamine and saw him place a handgun in a car just prior to his arrest. While defendant was in jail, deputies found a shank, a handmade syringe with a hypodermic needle, two spare needles, and two latex gloves in his cell. Defendant’s girlfriend admitted sending him drugs in prison, and defendant admitted injecting methamphetamine while in jail. In case No. 06F7071, a jury convicted defendant of possession of a firearm by a felon and being an occupant in a car with a concealed weapon. The trial court found that defendant had two prior strike convictions and a prior prison term. On each count, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison and imposed a one-year prior prison term enhancement under Penal Code former section 667.5, subdivision (b),1 but it stayed the sentence on the second count.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In case No. 07F1009, a jury convicted defendant of possessing a controlled substance and a weapon while in custody. Again, the trial court found that defendant had two prior strike convictions and a prior prison term. It sentenced him to 25 years to life on each conviction and imposed but stayed prior prison term enhancements.2 In 2023, defendant filed a request for resentencing as to case Nos. 06F7071 and 07F1009, asserting that the unstayed prior prison term enhancement was no longer valid under Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which became effective January 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, §§ 2, 3; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, §§ 11, 12.) The trial court struck the unstayed prior prison term enhancement in case No. 06F7071, but declined to otherwise resentence defendant. The trial court subsequently struck the stayed prior prison term enhancements in case Nos. 06F7071 and 07F1009. Defendant now contends the trial court should have recalled his sentence and resentenced him.3 We agree. We will affirm the trial court’s order striking the prior prison term enhancements but remand the matter with directions for the trial court to recall defendant’s sentence and comply with the requirements and considerations set forth in section 1172.75, subdivisions (c) and (d). DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court should have recalled his sentence and resentenced him. The People counter that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter any order. We will first address the jurisdictional issue.