Court Opinion

ID: 9387466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 00:03:38.544827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:13.582874
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/17/23 P. v. Aloe CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        G060893

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 13WF1563)

 ALTON CHRISTOPHER ALOE,                                               OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A.
Hoffer, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Request for judicial notice granted.
                   Torres & Torres and Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
              Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Alan
L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                   *          *          *
              At a November 2021 resentencing hearing following a previous appeal, the
trial court sentenced Alton Christopher Aloe to a determinate term of 13 years, followed
by 14 years to life, on his convictions for attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and
attempted vehicle burglary. The court imposed middle term sentences on Aloe’s
substantive offenses and middle and upper term sentences on a firearm enhancement.
Aloe again appeals, this time asserting he is entitled to another resentencing as a result of
                                   1
recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170, which, as amended, makes a low-term
sentence presumptively appropriate when a defendant’s “childhood trauma” is a
“contributing factor” to the defendant’s commission of an offense. (Id., subd. (b)(6)(A).)
              We agree that resentencing is necessary. Because section 1170, as
amended, limits the trial court’s discretion to impose the middle term if childhood trauma
was a contributing factor to the commission of the crime, and because the record does not
clearly indicate whether Aloe suffered childhood trauma or whether the court would have
imposed the same sentence under the current statute, the matter must be remanded for
another resentencing hearing. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

                                          FACTS
              As detailed in our previous opinion (People v. Aloe (Nov. 23, 2020,
G056882) [nonpub. opn.]), late one evening in 2012, Aloe shot a man who had
approached him while he was trying to break into a vehicle. An information charged
Aloe with attempted premeditated murder (count 1), assault with a firearm (count 2), and

       1
              All further undesignated statutory references are to this code.

                                              2
attempted second degree vehicle burglary (count 3). The information also alleged
various enhancements based on Aloe’s use of a firearm causing great bodily injury
(§§ 12022.5, subds. (a) & (d), 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.7, subd. (a)), that Aloe had
suffered two prior “strikes” under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(2)(A),
1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(2)(A)), that Aloe had a prior serious felony (§ 667,
subd. (a)(1)), and that Aloe had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
              A jury found Aloe guilty of all charges and found the enhancements true.
Aloe admitted the truth of his prior convictions. At sentencing, the trial court exercised
its discretion under section 1385 to strike one of Aloe’s prior strikes and granted the
parties’ joint motion to strike one of his prior prison term enhancements.
              In September 2018, the trial court sentenced Aloe to a determinate term of
23 years, followed by 14 years to life, as follows: on count 1 for attempted murder, Aloe
was sentenced to 14 years to life (doubling the middle term of seven years under the three
strikes law) (§§ 664, subd. (a), 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1)), a consecutive term of 10 years
(the upper term) on the enhancement for personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5,
subd. (a)), and a consecutive term of three years on the enhancement for causing great
bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), for a total sentence of 13 years determinate, plus 14
years to life in state prison. On count 2 for assault with a firearm, Aloe was sentenced to
six years in prison (double the middle term of three years) (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), plus a
consecutive term of four years (the middle term) on the enhancement for personal use of
a firearm (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d)), for a total sentence of 10 years, to be served
concurrent to count 1. On count 3 for attempted vehicle burglary, Aloe was sentenced to
two years (double the middle term of one year) (§§ 664, subd. (a), 459, 460, subd (b)), to
be served concurrent to count 1. As for the section 667, subdivision (a) prior serious
felony convictions, the court imposed five years on count 1 and an additional five years
on count 2, both to be served consecutively for a total of ten years.

                                              3
              Aloe appealed, arguing his conviction must be reversed due to various
alleged errors before and during trial. We rejected those contentions and affirmed his
conviction in November 2020. However, we reversed the judgment for resentencing only
and remanded the matter so the trial court could exercise its newly granted discretion on
whether to strike prior serious felony enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a).
              On remand, the trial court vacated Aloe’s state prison priors as to counts 1
and 2, thereby reducing Aloe’s sentence to a determinate term of 13 years and an
indeterminate term of 14 years to life. Aloe again appealed.

                                        DISCUSSION
              Aloe’s sole contention on this appeal is that he is entitled to resentencing
under recent amendments to section 1170, which now makes a low-term sentence
presumptively appropriate when a defendant’s “childhood trauma” is a “contributing
factor” to the defendant’s commission of an offense. (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6)(A).) We
agree that resentencing is warranted.
              When the trial court originally sentenced Aloe in September 2018, and
when it resentenced him in November 2021 after his first appeal, selection of the
appropriate term in a triad was “within the sound discretion of the court.” (Former
§ 1170, subd. (b).) As noted, the trial court imposed middle term sentences on Aloe’s
substantive offenses and middle and upper term sentences on the personal use of a
firearm enhancement.
              In January 2022, while this appeal was pending, Assembly Bill No. 124
(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 124) took effect and amended section 1170. As
amended, section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)(A), now provides: “[U]nless 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 any of the following was a contributing factor in the

                                              4
commission of the offense: [¶] (A) The person has experienced psychological, physical,
or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual
violence.” In addition, subdivision (b)(7) permits a trial court to impose the lower term
in its discretion, even if there is no evidence of the circumstances listed in subdivision
(b)(6). As the Attorney General concedes, these changes to section 1170 are ameliorative
and therefore apply retroactively to Aloe’s nonfinal conviction. (People v. Garcia (2022)
76 Cal.App.5th 887, 902.)
              Aloe asserts he is entitled to resentencing under the recent section 1170
amendments because the record suggests he suffered childhood trauma in the form of
early exposure to and use of drugs and alcohol. According to Aloe, if the trial court
determines that trauma contributed to his commission of the offenses, the lower terms
“shall” be imposed.
              Our record is not well developed in terms of whether Aloe sustained
childhood trauma. The probation report, which was prepared in 2014, well before
Assembly Bill 124 was introduced, briefly mentions that Aloe first tried alcohol at age 12
and occasionally used marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and opiate pills as
a teenager.
              The incomplete record is understandable because, without the enactment of
section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)(A), Aloe had no incentive to develop it further. Nor did
the trial court have the benefit of the amended statute at the sentencing hearing so that it
could conduct the required analysis.
              When a trial court sentences a defendant without awareness of the full
scope of its discretion, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing. (People v.
Banner (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 226, 242 [remanding matter for resentencing under § 1170
where it was unclear if the court would have selected the middle term if Assembly Bill
124 had been in effect at the time of sentencing].) “‘Defendants are entitled to sentencing
decisions made in the exercise of the “informed discretion” of the sentencing court.

                                              5
[Citations.] A court which is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no
more exercise that “informed discretion” than one whose sentence is or may have been
based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant's record.’ [Citation.]
In such circumstances, [our Supreme Court has] held that the appropriate remedy is to
remand for resentencing unless the record ‘clearly indicate[s]’ that the trial court would
have reached the same conclusion ‘even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.’”
(People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391.)
              At the November 2021 resentencing hearing, the trial court was unaware of
the scope of its newly created discretionary powers, and the record does not clearly
indicate whether the court would have reached the same conclusions if it were sentencing
Aloe under the current statute. Accordingly, this matter must be remanded so that the
parties may further develop the record for the court’s consideration of the new
section 1170 factors, and so the court can exercise its newly granted discretion under that
section.
              We express no view on whether childhood trauma did in fact contribute to
Aloe’s criminal offenses or on how the trial court should exercise its discretion. On
remand, the trial court may revisit all of its sentencing choices in light of the new
legislation. (People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1096; see People v.
Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425 [“the full resentencing rule allows a court to
revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant”].)

                                      DISPOSITION
              Aloe’s sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for
resentencing under the amended version of section 1170, subdivision (b). At the new
sentencing hearing, the court in its sound discretion may modify any aspect of Aloe’s
sentence in order to achieve its sentencing objectives. The judgment is otherwise

                                              6
affirmed. After resentencing, the court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment
and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

                                                GOETHALS, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.

                                            7