Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sup.Ct.No. SFO85258B
MORRISON, Acting P.J.
In People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, we remanded this cause with directions to the trial court to conduct a jury trial on aggravating sentencing factors.
The California Supreme Court then decided People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, which retroactively judicially reformed California’s sentencing laws and held that the remedy for a Sixth Amendment sentencing violation was a new hearing to be conducted by a judge, unconstrained by a presumptive midterm sentence. (Id. at pp. 843-857.)
In obedience to our remittitur, the trial court scheduled a sentencing jury trial.
The People, acting through the District Attorney of San Joaquin County, sought a writ of mandate, in effect to compel the trial court to follow the Sandoval procedures.
On September 11, 2007, we issued an alternative writ, commanding the trial court either to follow Sandoval or to show cause why it should not. We also issued a stay of the trial “pending further order of this court.”
Real party did not file a return.
On November 26, 2007, we were advised by the trial court clerk that in violation of the stay issued by this court on September 11, 2007, a court trial on sentencing has been set for December 3, 2007.
We have been advised by the trial court clerk that the relief sought by the People has been granted, thus mooting the petition. Forthwith, the alternative writ is discharged and the stay previously issued is lifted.
We concur: ROBIE, J., BUTZ, J.