People v. Sengpadychith (2001)

[No. S090076. Oct. 17, 2001.]

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAY SENGPADYCHITH, Defendant and Appellant.

In re SAY SENGPADYCHITH on Habeas Corpus.

[Modification of opinion (26 Cal.4th 316) with no change in judgment.]

THE COURT:

The opinion appearing herein at 26 Cal. 4th 316 is modified as follows:

1. The following sentence and citation are added to 26 Cal.4th at page 328, footnote 4, immediately after the first sentence:

At the time defendant committed his offenses, subdivision (b)(1) of section 186.22 increased the term of imprisonment by “one, two or three years at the court’s discretion.” (Former ? 186.22, subd. (b)(1), Stats. 1995, ch. 377, ? 2.)

2. The first sentence of the last paragraph at 26 Cal.4th, page 328, is modified to read as follows:

On remand, the Court of Appeal is to determine with respect to the offense of gross negligence in discharging a firearm whether the trial court’s instructional error was harmless under Chapman (see People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 142, 178-179 [77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094])5 and, with respect to the offense of attempted murder, whether the same error was harmless under Watson, supra, “46 Cal.2d at page 836. This modification does not affect the judgment.