People v. Hyce CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 12/29/23 P. v. Hyce CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, C098389
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16FE022561)
v.
RAUL ALAN HYCE,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Raul Alan Hyce appeals from the judgment rendered after his
resentencing. His appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no legal issues and
asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436. Having done so, we affirm.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A jury found defendant guilty of vehicular manslaughter and failing to stop at the
scene of an accident that resulted in death. The trial court sentenced him to seven years
in prison, constituting the six-year upper term sentence for vehicular manslaughter plus a
consecutive one-year sentence for failing to stop at the scene. Defendant appealed, and
this court remanded for resentencing in accordance with new sentencing laws enacted
after defendant was sentenced. (People v. Hyce (Nov. 28, 2022, C092322) [nonpub.
opn.].)
At the resentencing hearing, the People contended the trial court could consider
four aggravating circumstances: (1) defendant’s callousness, which was “incorporated in
the jury’s guilty verdicts”; (2) defendant’s numerous prior convictions and sustained
petitions in juvenile justice proceedings; (3) defendant’s prior prison term; and (4)
defendant’s probationary status at the time he committed the offenses. Based on these
aggravating circumstances and the absence of mitigating circumstances, the People
argued the court should again impose the upper term sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. The People also provided a certified copy of a record of defendant’s
arrests and prosecutions from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System.
Defendant contended the trial court should impose the lower term sentence
because the People had not pleaded any of the aggravating circumstances or proven any
to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant also contended Penal Code section
1170, subdivision (b)(6) applied to make a lower term sentence presumptive. Finally,
defendant argued he had been a model prisoner and parolee, had completed a drug and
alcohol rehabilitation program, and had obtained a high school equivalency certificate, all
of which should serve as mitigating circumstances.
2
The trial court denied probation based on defendant’s prior convictions, poor
performance on probation, refusal to accept responsibility for causing the victim’s death,
and lack of remorse. Instead, the court again imposed the upper term prison sentence for
vehicular manslaughter. The court relied on only one aggravating circumstance,
defendant’s numerous prior convictions and juvenile adjudications. The court found
defendant’s prior convictions true beyond a reasonable doubt based on the certified
record of defendant’s criminal history. The court also imposed a one-year consecutive
prison sentence for failing to stop at the scene, for a total prison sentence of seven years.
Finally, the court found Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) did not apply
because defendant had not presented any evidence of any of the contributing factors
required.
Defendant timely appealed from the judgment.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within
30 days of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have
received no communication from defendant. Having reviewed the record, we find no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Accordingly, we will affirm.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
Duarte, J.
We concur:
/s/
Robie, Acting P. J.
/s/
Boulware Eurie, J.
4