People v. Ogletree CA2/5

Filed 6/16/23 P. v. Ogletree CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B322650
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. YA093658-01)
FLETCHER LOUIS
OGLETREE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court
of the County of Los Angeles, Alan B. Honeycutt, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2017, defendant Fletcher Ogletree pleaded
guilty to: four counts of attempted second-degree robbery (Pen.
Code,1 §§ 664 and 212.5, subd. (c)); one count of second-degree
robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)); and one count of felony evasion of a
peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2). He also admitted to suffering
a prior strike conviction within the meaning of section 667,
subdivisions (b) through (i) and section 1170.12 and two prior
serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667,
subdivision (a)(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to an
aggregate term of 26 years and eight months, which included two
consecutive five-year sentence enhancements under section 667,
subdivision (a)(1).
In a letter dated May 9, 2022, the Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Secretary) recommended that the trial court recall defendant’s
sentence pursuant to former section 1170.03, subdivision (a)(1).2
The Secretary explained: “In light of the court’s newfound
authority to not impose a consecutive enhancement pursuant to
. . . [s]ection 667, [s]ubdivision (a)(1) (authority which did not
exist at the time of [defendant’s] sentencing), and after personally
reviewing [defendant’s prison] commitment offense and in-prison
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code,
unless otherwise indicated.
2 Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.03 was
renumbered as section 1172.1 without change. To avoid
confusion, all further references to section 1172.1 shall include
former section 1170.03.
2
conduct, I recommend that [defendant’s] sentence be recalled and
that he be resentenced in accordance with . . .[section 1172.1,
s]ubdivision (a)(1).”
On June 15, 2022, without appointing counsel or holding a
hearing, the trial court issued a minute order declining to
resentence defendant. The court explained its ruling as follows:
“In response to the [Secretary’s] letter dated May 9, 2022, . . . in
support of resentencing defendant . . . pursuant to [section
1172.1] . . . [t]he court has read and considered the letter,
supporting documentation, and reviewed the court file. [¶] The
court stands in its discretion to resentence and declines to do so.
[¶] Defendant . . . was facing a pretrial sentence of 125 years to
life. He negotiated a settlement to . . . his benefit. The sentence
of 26 years and [eight] months for his crime spree of threatening
to kill people as he robbed them is just.”
On July 22, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal from
the trial court’s ruling.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying
the Secretary’s resentencing recommendation under section
1172.1 by failing to appoint counsel, failing to set a status
conference, and failing to hold a hearing before ruling on the
recommendation. He also contends that the court misunderstood
the scope of its discretion in response to such a recommendation
and therefore abused its discretion in denying it. The Attorney
General concedes that the court erred and that reversal and
remand are warranted.
3
We agree with the parties that the trial court erred by
denying the Secretary’s resentencing recommendation under
section 1172.1 without first following the procedures required by
that section, including appointing counsel and holding a hearing
to consider the recommendation. (People v. McMurray (2022) 76
Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040.) We therefore reverse the order denying
the resentencing recommendation and remand the matter to the
court for further proceedings pursuant to section 1172.1.
III. DISPOSITION
The order denying the Secretary’s resentencing
recommendation is reversed and remanded with directions to
hold further proceedings in compliance with section 1172.1.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
MOOR, J.
4