People v. Brummett CA3

discussion of whether the low term was appropriate for the principal count and associated firearm enhancement, pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). We further note that the trial court failed to clearly state that, pursuant to section 1385, it found dismissal of multiple enhancements was not in the interest of justice (or state any reasons for this finding). Both parties brief forfeiture, as defense counsel failed to raise these issues or object to the trial court’s rulings. Appellate counsel for Brummett raises ineffective assistance of counsel as related to these failings. Because of this alternate claim, we

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 exercise our discretion to address the substantive claims of error on their merits. (People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 928.) As it appears the errors in their totality prejudiced Brummett, we will vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2020, a jury found Brummett guilty of 21 offenses related to domestic violence: five counts of corporal injury with a prior corporal injury conviction (§…