P. v. Keating 7/1/10 CA2/7

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B210240M

Case Date: 10/07/2010

Preview:Filed 7/1/10

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.

B210240 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA056847) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

NORMAN KENNETH KEATING, Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT*: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 7, 2010, and certified for publication, be modified as follows: 1. On page 20, in the second full paragraph, at lines 7-8, the opinion states: "However, in this District, Division One in People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049 and Division Six in People v. Delgado (Apr. 29, 2010, B213271) --- Cal.App.4th --[2010 WL 1718097], have reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the amendments are retroactive." It should read: "However, in this District, Division One in People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049 reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the amendments are retroactive." 2. On page 20, in the second full paragraph, the last sentence states: "As we shall explain, we join Division One and Six of this District and the majority view that the amendments apply retroactively." It should read: "As we shall explain, we join Division One of this District and the majority view that the amendments apply retroactively." Continued:

3. On page 26, in the second full paragraph, starting at line 11, the opinion states: "Our sister divisions in this District and the First and Third District Courts of Appeal recently reached the same conclusion in considering the 2009 amendments to section 4019." It should read: "Division One in this District and the First and Third District Courts of Appeal recently reached the same conclusion in considering the 2009 amendments to section 4019." 4. On page 29, in the second full paragraph, the first sentence states: "Accordingly, we follow the majority of California courts, as well as Division One and Six of this District, in holding that section 4019, as amended, constitutes an amendatory statute mitigating punishment under Estrada." It should read: "Accordingly, we follow the majority of California courts, as well as Division One of this District, in holding that section 4019, as amended, constitutes an amendatory statute mitigating punishment under Estrada."

The foregoing does not change the judgment.

________________________________________________________________________ PERLUSS, P. J. WOODS, J. ZELON, J.

2

Download P. v. Keating 7/1/10 CA2/7.pdf