In re Lucero CA4/2 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 8/29/13 In re Lucero CA4/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    In re NATHAN LEE LUCERO,                                                 E058986
    on Habeas Corpus.                                               (Super.Ct.No. RIC1305180)
    OPINION
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petition granted
    in part and denied in part, with directions.
    Nathan Lee Lucero, in pro. per., for Petitioner.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier, Deputy Attorney
    General, for Respondent.
    DISCUSSION
    In this matter, the People agree that the record clearly indicates that the trial court
    was unaware that it had the discretion to sentence petitioner to a term of 25 years to
    life rather than a mandatory term of life without the possibility of parole. (Pen. Code,
    § 190.5.) Hence, the petition must be granted to the extent that we will direct the trial
    court to schedule a new sentencing hearing and permit the filing of briefs on the
    1
    appropriate term. As the People concede that relief is appropriate, we may act without
    issuing an order to show cause. (Cf. People v. Duvall (1995) 
    9 Cal.4th 464
     and People v.
    Romero (1994) 
    8 Cal.4th 728
    .) This result also moots petitioner’s claims of cruel and
    unusual punishment. (See Miller v. Alabama (2012) ___U.S.____ [
    132 S.Ct. 2455
    ].)
    DISPOSITION
    Accordingly, the petition is granted in part as follows: the matter is remanded to
    the Superior Court of Riverside County. The court shall appoint counsel for petitioner
    and set a briefing schedule as well as a new sentencing hearing at which the trial court
    may exercise the discretion conferred by Penal Code section 190.5. In all other respects
    the petition is denied.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    CODRINGTON
    J.
    We concur:
    RAMIREZ
    P. J.
    KING
    J.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E058986

Filed Date: 8/29/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014