Court Opinion

ID: 9841246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:04:36.350584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:00.251446
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. Tate CA1/2
                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

        IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                             DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,
          Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                               A165785
 v.
 MARKEL TATE,                                                  (Contra Costa County Super.
                                                                Ct. No. 05001427277)
          Defendant and Appellant.

        In 2015, defendant Markel Tate was convicted, pursuant to a plea
agreement, of one count of second degree burglary and one count of unlawful
sexual intercourse. As a result, he received a 10-year prison sentence, which
included one year for a prior prison term and four years for a firearm use
enhancement.
        In April 2022, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing,
requesting the trial court strike the one-year term for the prison prior
pursuant to former Penal Code section 1171.1 (since renumbered § 1172.5,
Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12, eff. June 30, 2022). Defendant also asked the trial
court to exercise its discretion granted by Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018
Reg. Sess.) and Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to strike or dismiss
the firearm enhancement.

                                                        1
      In July 2022, the trial court struck the one-year enhancement for the
prior prison term and declined to strike the firearm enhancement.
      Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request to strike
or dismiss the firearm enhancement.1 We affirm.
                                DISCUSSION
      Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court abused its
discretion in failing to order a supplemental probation report before
resentencing defendant. But defendant did not request a supplemental
probation report, nor did he object to the trial court proceeding without
considering such a report. To the contrary, defendant acknowledges that
defense counsel objected to the prosecutor’s request for a continuance to
obtain defendant’s prison file, and that he cannot show prejudice from any
such abuse of discretion because he objected to the very records as hearsay
that he now claims might have shown changes in his behavior and attitude in
recent years of his imprisonment. Defendant further concedes that he was
statutorily ineligible for probation at resentencing. Under these
circumstances, defendant has forfeited his only appellate claim. (People v.
Franco (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 831, 834 [where a defendant is ineligible for
probation, failure to request a supplemental probation report results “in
waiver of a supplemental report in the trial court and forfeiture of the right
to object to the absence of such a report on appeal”].) Moreover, “neither
statute nor rule of court required the trial court to obtain a supplemental
report” in this case. (Ibid.) Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim that the
trial court abused its discretion in failing to order a supplemental probation
report.

      1 In his reply brief, defendant’s counsel informs us that defendant was

released from prison on parole on or about May 1, 2023.

                                       2
                       DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

                            3
                                           _________________________
                                           Miller, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Stewart, P.J.

_________________________
Markman, J.*

A165785, People v. Tate

      * Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                       4