People v. Saldana CA2/8

Filed 5/14/24 P. v. Saldana CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE B324524 OF CALIFORNIA, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. VA135326)

v.

ANTHONY JESUS SALDANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph R. Porras, Judge. Reversed with directions. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Lindsay Boyd, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

In our opinion in People v. Saldana (Sept. 3, 2019, B292736 [nonpub. opn.]), we remanded the case with directions to the trial court to exercise its discretion under Senate Bill No. 1393 as to two 5-year enhancements for prior convictions under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). We also held that appellant Anthony Jesus Saldana had the right to be present for the resentencing hearing and to raise other issues deferred to the trial court in our opinion. We specifically directed the trial court in this manner: “The matter is remanded with directions to the trial court to exercise its discretion under Senate Bill No. 1393. (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 34–35.) At the remand hearing, the defendant has the right to the assistance of counsel, and unless he chooses to forgo it, the right to be present.” (People v. Saldana, supra, B292736.) The resentencing hearing was set for September 21, 2020. Unfortunately, even though appellant requested to be present at the hearing and was agreeable to delaying the hearing until after the COVID crisis had subsided, the trial court proceeded in his absence. The court explained why it was proceeding without appellant: “The court has kind of made the court’s view of this case clear from the time I sentenced him after hearing in the jury trial four years ago to also the striking of the gun allegation when we did that hearing and we had to have him back from state prison. Now we have this Covid crisis which is stopping all the transport to and from county jail that has been going on. So we don’t know when that’s going to end. We all know the case pretty much inside and out. I don't know what him being here would add to the argument made that's going to be made by Mr. Brown [defense counsel] right now.