People v. Tyler CA1/4

Filed 3/22/24 P. v. Tyler CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, A166293 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Francisco City & County REGINALD C. TYLER, Super. Ct. Nos. CRI-1390246, SCN150104) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Reginald Tyler appeals from a trial court order resentencing him pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.2 The court granted in part his petition for resentencing, striking two sentencing enhancements for prior convictions, but declining to grant relief and reduce his sentence pursuant to section 654, which prohibits multiple punishments for more than one crime committed during a single act or course of conduct. (People v. Garcia (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 240, 256, review granted on other grounds, Jan. 11, 2023,

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. 2 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. For simplicity, we refer throughout this opinion to section 1172.75, which was originally numbered section 1171.1. (People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 378, fn. 2.) There were no substantive changes to the statute upon renumbering. (Ibid.)

S276858.) Where, as here, the court is evaluating the application of section 654 to a “course of conduct,” a trial court asks whether the “course of conduct reflects a single ‘ “intent and objective” ’ or multiple intents and objectives.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311.) If the defendant acted with a single intent and objective, then the crimes may be punished only once; otherwise, section 654 does not apply and the crimes may be punished separately. (Id. at pp. 311–312.) If section 654 does apply, recent amendments allow a trial court to impose either the greater or lesser sentence for the two crimes and stay the other sentence, whereas the former version of section 654 required the court to impose the greater sentence and stay the lesser. (Garcia, supra, at p. 257.) Tyler now argues that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, this court’s opinion in the appeal from his conviction prohibited it from reconsidering the application of section 654. The Attorney General contends that the trial court’s application of the law-of-the-case doctrine was correct, but also that its alternative ruling that it would reach the same conclusion about section 654 even if it considered the issue anew requires us to affirm. We affirm based on the trial court’s alternative ruling. BACKGROUND At the conclusion of his third trial, Tyler was convicted of murder, auto theft, and firearm violations arising from an incident in 1992. Tyler, who was “grossly intoxicated on cocaine,” jumped out of a window while fleeing a drug deal gone bad. He landed on a car and hit his head; he believed a bullet