People v. Sydnor CA3

Filed 1/19/24 P. v. Sydnor CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C096333

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15F03945)

v.

ANTJUAN SYDNOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a prior opinion, we affirmed the murder conviction of defendant Antjuan Sydnor but remanded for the trial court to consider its discretion to strike a firearm enhancement under then recently enacted Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). On remand, the trial court declined to strike the enhancement. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court misinterpreted and misapplied Penal Code section 1385 and erred in not considering other interim sentencing changes under Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)

1

We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in declining to strike defendant’s firearm enhancement but abused its discretion by failing to consider other interim changes in the sentencing law. The sentence is vacated, and the matter remanded for resentencing. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant and a codefendant entered the home of “Byron D., bound Byron and his girlfriend, and forced them to the floor. [Defendant and the codefendant] then beat Byron while repeatedly asking him for money. Byron was shot in the head and killed when he did not give them money.” (People v. Sydnor (May 27, 2021, C085040, C085760) [nonpub. opn.] (Sydnor).) A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder with a robbery special circumstance, robbery, and the enhancement of personally discharging a firearm causing death for both counts (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to life without parole for the murder conviction plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. The court also sentenced defendant to the upper term of six years for robbery but stayed that sentence, along with its firearm enhancement. Defendant appealed, and we affirmed his convictions but remanded for the trial court to consider its discretion to strike defendant’s firearm enhancement. (Sydnor, supra, C085040.) In April 2022, the trial court held a hearing and noted this court “affirmed the conviction but remanded to this Court solely to exercise the Court’s discretion under the intervening legislation, [Senate Bill No.] 620, from 2017 that now gives the Court the discretion to strike the enhancement for personal discharge of a firearm causing death . . . . There is not a full resentencing.” At the hearing, the trial court pointed out to the People that “one of the strongest arguments” by the defense was “if there’s already a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, what does the additional 25-years-to-life add, other than it looks like a sentence that would be imposed in Mississippi. For practical purposes, the Court has