People v. Hunter CA4/1

Filed 5/29/24 P. v. Hunter CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082143

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE404034)

NORVEL HUNTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel L. Lamborn, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Liz Sulaiman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION Norvel Hunter led California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers on a high- speed chase during which he drove his vehicle recklessly and while under the influence of alcohol. He pleaded guilty to four criminal charges in connection with the chase: evading a peace officer with reckless driving

(Veh. Code,1 § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1); driving while under the influence of alcohol (§ 23152, subd. (a); count 2); driving while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher (id., subd. (b); count 3); and driving with a suspended or revoked driving privilege (§ 14601.1, subd. (a); count 4). The trial court sentenced Hunter to eight months in prison for count 1, ordered the sentence for count 1 to run consecutive to a 32-month sentence imposed in a prior criminal case, and imposed concurrent one-year sentences for counts 2 through 4 with credit for time served. On appeal, Hunter contends the court should have stayed punishment for either count 2 or count 3 under Penal Code section 654 because both charges arose from the same act of driving after excessive drinking. He also claims the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the number of credits to which he is entitled. The People concede these errors and we accept this well-taken concession. Thus, we reverse the judgment and remand the matter with instructions that the trial court resentence Hunter and prepare a corrected abstract of judgment accurately reflecting the number of credits he will have earned as of the date of the corrected abstract of judgment.