People v. Bishop CA5

California Court of Appeal May 14, 2024 No. F086785Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by reimposing the original sentence after being granted the discretion to choose between sentencing terms under the amended Penal Code section 654.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by reimposing the original sentence following the amendment to Penal Code section 654?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court exercised its new discretion to sentence Bishop in the same manner as it had originally done.”

“In light of the nature of the facts underlying the charges of conviction, we conclude Bishop has failed to establish the court abused its discretion in resentencing him in the same manner as it had at his original sentencing.”

Filed 5/14/24 P. v. Bishop CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086785 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF280823a) v.

TREVOR JIM BISHOP, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet Boccone, Judge. Ross Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth N. Sokoler and Ross K. Naughton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.

Trevor Jim Bishop challenges, in this sentencing appeal, the sentence imposed by the trial court at a resentencing hearing necessitated by retroactive changes in sentencing laws following his original sentencing. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, a jury found Trevor Bishop guilty of one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and one count of assault on a child under eight years old by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and resulting in death (§ 273ab, subd. (a); count 2). Bishop was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison on count 2; he was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison on count 1, which sentence was stayed under section 654. Bishop’s convictions were affirmed in an opinion issued by this court in a prior appeal filed by him. (People v. Bishop (May 5, 2022, F076745) [nonpub. opn.] (Bishop I).) At that time, this court remanded the matter for resentencing to permit the trial court to exercise newly granted discretion under section 654, subdivision (a), as amended by Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 518). (Stats. 2021, ch. 441, § 1.) At a resentencing hearing on August 15, 2023, the trial court reimposed Bishop’s original sentence, that is 25 years to life in prison on count 2 and 15 years to life in prison on count 1 (stayed under section 654). This appeal followed. As for the evidence adduced at the underlying trial in this matter, we exhaustively detailed the relevant facts in Bishop I and we therefore need not repeat them here. (Bishop I, supra, F076745.)

People v. Bishop CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief