Court Opinion

ID: 9955990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 22:02:34.857663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:30.083073
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/29/24 P. v. Labarr 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F086866
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                (Super. Ct. No. F20905209)
                    v.

 PHILLIP EUGENE LABARR,                                                                   OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alvin M.
Harrell III, Judge.
         Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

         * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
                                    INTRODUCTION
       This case returns to this court following remand for resentencing. (People v.
Labarr (Mar. 14, 2023, F082622) [nonpub. opn.] (Labarr).) Appointed counsel for
defendant Phillip Eugene Labarr asks this court to review the record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Counsel also requests that we order clerical corrections to the abstract of judgment.
Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date
of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, arguing his speedy trial rights were
violated and the victim’s mental illness was not adequately investigated.
       We will order clerical corrections to the abstract of judgment as explained below.
However, finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we otherwise affirm.
                                     BACKGROUND
       Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code,1 § 240; count 1),
battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2), assault with intent to
commit rape (§ 220, subd. (a)(1); count 3), criminal threats (§ 422; count 4), and a second
count of misdemeanor assault (§ 240; count 5). Defendant admitted two prior “strike”
convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i),
1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). The trial court sentenced defendant on each of counts 3 and 4 to
consecutive terms of 25 years to life. On count 2, the court imposed and stayed, pursuant
to section 654, an upper-term sentence of eight years. On counts 1 and 5, defendant was
sentenced to county jail terms with time served. (Labarr, supra, F082622.)
       On appeal, we reversed the convictions on counts 1 and 5 as necessarily included
within the conviction on count 3. Accordingly, we vacated the sentence and remanded
for a full resentencing. We otherwise affirmed. (Labarr, supra, F082622.)

       1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2.
       On remand, the court conducted a resentencing hearing. Defense counsel asked
the court to strike defendant’s prior strike convictions pursuant to People v. Superior
Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and to sentence him on count 3 to a determinate
term of 12 years, on count 2 to a consecutive lower-term sentence of two years, and on
count 4 to a consecutive lower-term sentence of 16 months, for an aggregate sentence of
15 years, 4 months. The court declined to strike the prior strike convictions and instead
sentenced defendant on count 3 to a term of 25 years to life; on count 2 to the middle
term of three years, doubled to six years due to the prior strike, and stayed pursuant to
section 654; and on count 4 to a consecutive term of 25 years to life.
                                      DISCUSSION
I.     Corrections to the Abstract of Judgment
       As counsel notes, the abstract of judgment contains several clerical errors. We
may correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment at any time “ ‘on [our] own motion
or upon the application of the parties.’ ” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186–
187.) We may do so following a review of the record required by Wende and without
further briefing. (See People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 244.) Accordingly, we
will order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment as described below.
       First, section 6 of the indeterminate abstract of judgment wrongly states that
sentences of 50 years to life were imposed on counts 3 and 4. The court shall correct the
abstract of judgment to reflect that sentences of 25 years to life were imposed on these
counts.
       Second, section 1 of the indeterminate abstract of judgment fails to check the box
to indicate count 4 is to be served consecutively to count 3. The court shall correct the
abstract of judgment to correct this omission.
       Lastly, the captions of both the determinate and indeterminate abstracts of
judgment reflect a sentencing hearing date of April 6, 2021, the date of the original

                                             3.
sentencing. The court shall correct the caption to reflect the date of the resentencing
hearing, which was September 13, 2023.
II.    Wende Review
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant.
III.   Defendant’s Arguments
       Defendant contends his speedy trial rights were violated when trial was continued
over his and his counsel’s objections. However, this argument is outside the scope of the
instant appeal from the trial court’s judgment following resentencing. (See People v.
Murphy (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 392, 395 [“ ‘[W]hen a criminal defendant could have
raised an issue in a previous appeal but did not do so, the defendant may be deemed to
have waived the right to raise the issue in a subsequent appeal, absent a showing of good
cause or justification for the delay.’ ”].)
       Defendant contends the court refused to “look into” the victim’s mental illness.
This issue is outside the scope of the instant appeal. Moreover, the court reviewed the
victim’s medical records in camera at the time of defendant’s trial, and this court
reviewed those records in camera on appeal. We concluded the trial court did not err in
determining the victim’s sealed medical records were not discoverable by the defense.
(Labarr, supra, F082622.)
                                        DISPOSITION
       The matter is remanded for the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment as
stated herein. As corrected, the judgment is affirmed.

                                              4.