People v. Mendez CA1/5 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/13/22 P. v. Mendez CA1/5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION FIVE
    THE PEOPLE,
    A163837
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                                     (Marin County
    Super. Ct. No. SC206512A)
    HILCER MENDEZ,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    In May 2021, Hilcer Mendez (appellant) pled guilty to a forcible lewd
    act upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)).1
    The plea agreement did not include a stipulated sentence. In July, the trial
    court sentenced appellant to the upper term of ten years in state prison.
    While this appeal was pending, “[e]ffective January 1, 2022, our
    determinate sentencing law, section 1170, was amended in several
    fundamental ways. (See Sen. Bill No. 567 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.);
    Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3; Assem. Bill No. 124 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.);
    All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. We omit
    1
    the underlying facts, which are not relevant to this appeal.
    1
    Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 5.)” (People v. Flores (2022) 
    73 Cal.App.5th 1032
    ,
    1038.) Two amendments are relevant here. First, the statute now provides
    the court may impose an upper term sentence “only when there are
    circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a
    term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying
    those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been
    found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a
    court trial,” or upon consideration of the defendant’s prior convictions based
    on a certified record of conviction. (§ 1170, subd. (b)(2)–(3).) Second, the
    statute now provides that, “unless the court finds that the aggravating
    circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the
    lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, the court shall order
    imposition of the lower term if,” as relevant here, “a contributing factor in the
    commission of the offense” was the defendant’s experience of “childhood
    trauma.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6)(A).) Appellant argues he is entitled to
    resentencing under the amended statute.
    As the People concede, “the amended version of section 1170,
    subdivision (b) that became effective on January 1, 2022, applies retroactively
    in this case as an ameliorative change in the law applicable to all nonfinal
    convictions on appeal.” (People v. Flores, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 1039.)
    The People also concede the aggravating circumstances relied on by the trial
    court do not satisfy section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) because they were not
    stipulated to by appellant, found true beyond a reasonable doubt, or based on
    a certified record of conviction.2 Finally, the People agree with appellant’s
    2The aggravating factors found by the court were: there was a high
    degree of cruelty and callousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)); the
    victim was particularly vulnerable (id., rule 4.421(a)(3)); appellant took
    2
    contention that he is entitled to present evidence that childhood trauma was
    a contributing factor in the commission of the offense under section 1170,
    subdivision (b)(6)(A). The People’s concessions are all proper.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is reversed and remanded for resentencing under the
    amended version of section 1170, subdivision (b).
    SIMONS, Acting P.J.
    We concur.
    BURNS, J.
    WISEMAN, J.*
    (A163837)
    advantage of a position of trust (id., rule 4.421(a)(11)); and there were
    additional instances of misconduct based on charges dismissed with a waiver
    pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 754
     (id., rule 4.425(c)).
    * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate
    District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
    California Constitution.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A163837

Filed Date: 12/13/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2022