Filed 8 /20/15 P. v. Patton CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PERRELL C . PATTON,

Defendant and Appellant. B258914

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA048679)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County

. William C.

Ryan , Judge . Reversed and remanded.

Wayne C. Tobin for Defendan t and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Lance E. Winter s , Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Stephanie C.

Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *2

In 2003, t his division affirmed t he judgment following defendant Perrell C.

Patton’ s convictions for carjacking, attempted kidnapping for carjacking, evading police

officers, and possession of cocaine. Defendant was sentenced to three consecutive

indeterminate terms of 25 years to life. The court also imposed sentences for various

enhancements and stayed the sentence for attempted kidnapping for carjacking pursuant

to Penal Code section 654.

After the voters passed Prop osition 36, the Three Stri kes Reform Act of 2012

(now codified at Pe n. Code, § 1170.126), defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence.

Defendant acknowledged that two of the four triggering offenses were serious or violent

felonies (carjacking and attempted kidnapping), but he sought resentencing on the

two felonies that were not serious or violent (evasion of a p eace officer and possession of

cocaine). The trial court denied the petition.

Recently, in People v. Johnson and People v. Machado ( 2015 ) 61 Cal.4 th 674, 695

( John son/Machado ), the Supreme Court held “ an inmate is eligible for resentencing with

respect to a current offense that is neither serious nor violent despite the presence of

another current offe nse that is serious or violent.” This court requested that couns el

submit letter briefs stating how Johnson/Machado affect s the disposition of this appeal

. We have received the parties’ briefs. There is no dispute that defendant is entitled to a

hearing on his petition for recall of sentence. Respondent requests tha t we order the trial

court on remand to make further eligibility findings to determine whether defendant

poses an unreasonable risk of d anger to public safety with respect to the counts that are

not serious or violent felonies . We decline to tell the tria l court how to proceed, apart

from reversing the order denying the petition and remanding for further proceedings in

conformance with Johnson/Machado.

DISPOSITION

The order denying the petition for recall of sentence under Penal Code

section 1170.126 is r eversed. The matter is remanded for further proceedings in

conformance with Johnson/Machado.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR: RUBIN, Acting P. J. FLIER, J.