Court Opinion

ID: 9914151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 18:02:00.779756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:25.156145
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/29/23 P. v. Salcido CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080067

 v.                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. SWF2007094)

 RAY AUGUSTINE SALCIDO,                                                  OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judge.

Affirmed.

         Valerie G. Wass, 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, Collette C. Cavalier, Paige B.

Hazard, Kathryn Kirschbaum and Nora S. Weyl, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff

and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                               I.

                                      INTRODUCTION

       In July 2021, defendant and appellant Roy Augustine Salcido pled guilty to two

domestic violence counts under a negotiated plea agreement for a suspended upper-term,

four-year sentence and a grant of probation. On the day he was supposed to appear for

sentencing, however, defendant did not appear. Not long afterward, defendant was

charged with murder, and he was later convicted of the offense. In October 2022, the

trial court simultaneously sentenced him for the murder and domestic violence charges,

which included an upper term of four years for one count of domestic violence.

       Defendant contends Senate Bill No. 567 (SB 567) changed the applicable

sentencing law, the changes apply to him, and the trial court could not have imposed the

agreed-on upper-term sentence for the domestic violence charges under those changes

without making additional factual findings that the court did not make. We affirm.

                                              II.

                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       In February 2020, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office filed a

complaint charging defendant with willfully and unlawfully inflicting corporal injury

resulting in a traumatic condition upon his spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, or parent of
                                                         1
his child (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2). The complaint also alleged that

defendant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).

       1
           All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                               2
       In July 2021, defendant pled guilty to count 1 pursuant to a negotiated plea

agreement. The plea required the trial court to impose an upper term sentence of four

years, suspend execution of the sentence, and grant defendant three years of formal

probation with 220 days of work release or house arrest. Defendant waived time for the

sentencing hearing and the sentencing was continued to September 2021. Defendant

failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued.

       In October 2021, defendant was located placed in custody on suspicion of having

committed murder. The sentencing proceedings on defendant’s domestic violence

charges were repeatedly continued while defendant went to trial on the murder charge.

Defendant was later convicted of first-degree murder with a deadly weapon enhancement.

       In a bifurcated proceeding in this case, the trial court found true that defendant

was on bail or parole at the time of that offense for a robbery conviction. The court also

sustained a serious prior felony enhancement and a strike prior enhancement for the

robbery conviction.

       In October 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant for the murder and domestic

violence charges. He was sentenced to 50 years to life in state prison plus eight years

determinate for the murder charge. As for the domestic violence charges, the trial court

denied probation and found that a crime (the murder) disqualified defendant from a

county jail sentence. The court then imposed the upper term of four years to run

consecutive to the murder sentence. Count 2 was dismissed in the interests of justice and

a prior strike allegation was dismissed pursuant to the negotiated plea.

                                              3
                                            III.

                                      DISCUSSION

       Defendant’s sole argument is that SB 567, which amended section 1170,

subdivision (b), applies to his domestic violence sentence, so the court was required to

impose the middle term unless it made certain findings, which it did not make. The

People acknowledge it is unclear whether the trial court recognized that the then-recent

amendments to section 1170, subdivision (b), imposed by SB 567 applied to defendant’s

stipulated sentence. The People agree SB 567’s changes apply to defendant, whose case

was not yet final when he pled guilty in July 2021 and was sentenced in October 2022.

But they argue the trial court had no option other than imposing an upper-term sentence

pursuant to defendant’s stipulated plea agreement. Thus, the People contend that if the

trial court erred in failing to apply the amended version of section 1170, subdivision (b)

when approving defendant’s plea deal and sentencing him to the upper term, the error

was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree any error was harmless and affirm

on that basis.

       SB 567, which went into effect in January 2022, amended section 1170,

subdivision (b) to make the middle term the presumptive sentence for a term of

imprisonment unless certain circumstances exist. (See Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3, adding

§ 1170, subd. (b)(1), (2).) Under amended section 1170, subdivision (b), the trial court

may impose an upper-term sentence only where there are circumstances in aggravation,

                                             4
and the facts underlying all of the aggravating circumstances have been stipulated by the

defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or court trial. (Ibid.)

       The Courts of Appeal are currently split on whether SB 567’s amendments apply

to a negotiated sentence. The case the People rely on, People v. Mitchell (2022) 83
                                                                             2
Cal.App.5th 1051 (Mitchell), review granted December 14, 2022, S277314, holds that

the amendments to section 1170, subdivision (b) enacted by SB 567 do not apply to a

stipulated sentence. Another court has since followed Mitchell. (People v. Sallee (2023)

88 Cal.App.5th 330, 338-339.) However, People v. Todd (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 373
                                                  3
(Todd), review granted April 26, 2023, S279154, expressly disagreed with Mitchell and

holds that SB 567’s amendments to section 1170, subdivision (b) apply retroactively to a

stipulated sentence. Another court has since followed Todd while disagreeing with

Mitchell. (People v. Fox (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 826, 833.)

       We need not pick a side here. Even if defendant is correct that the amendments to

section 1170, subdivision (b) enacted by SB 567 apply to his stipulated sentence and the

trial court erred by failing to apply them, the error was harmless. (People v. Berdoll

(2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 159, 161 [applying SB 567 retroactively but declining to remand

because error was harmless].)

       2
         Mitchell may be cited only for its persuasive value and to show that a split of
authority exists. (See People v. Mitchell (2022) 301 Cal.Rptr.3d 812, 812-813; Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3).)
       3
        Todd is a grant-and-hold pending our Supreme Court’s resolution of Mitchell.
(See People v. Todd (2023) 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 345, 345.)

                                             5
       Courts of Appeal, including this court, are split on how to assess harmlessness in

the SB 567 context. (See People v. Lewis (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1137 (Lewis)

[discussing various standards reviewing courts employ to review error in retroactive

application of amended section 1170, subdivision (b)]; People v. Butler (2023) 89

Cal.App.5th 953, 960, fn. 1.) But this court and the majority of other Courts of Appeal

first ask whether the sentence could be imposed constitutionally. (See Lewis, supra, at

pp. 1136-1137.) At a minimum, this requires us to find that a jury would have found at

least one aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt. (See id. at pp. 1137.)

We make that finding here.

       Defendant cannot and does not dispute that he was convicted by a jury of a murder

that he committed while out on bail and awaiting sentencing in this case. The trial court

properly relied on a certified record of that conviction when imposing the upper term in

this case and did not have to submit the issue to a jury. (§ 1170, subd. (b)(1)-(2) [“[T]he

court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on

a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.”].) Nor

can defendant dispute that the murder was of increasing violence compared to his prior

robbery conviction. Any reasonable jury would have found this aggravating

circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt, so the trial court’s reliance on it was

harmless. As a result, defendant’s sentence is constitutional because a reasonable jury

would have found at least one aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Lewis, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 1137.)

                                             6
       Courts of Appeal are also split on the next step of the harmlessness analysis.

(Lewis, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 1137.) The most defendant-friendly test next asks

whether the record “clearly indicates” whether the trial court would have imposed the

same sentence under amended section 1170, subdivision (b). (See ibid.) Even under that

standard, any error here was harmless because the record clearly indicates that the trial

court would have imposed the upper term under amended section 1170, subdivision (b).

       Although the trial court sentenced defendant according to the parties’ negotiated

plea, the court still explained in detail at the sentencing hearing why it was imposing an

upper term for defendant’s domestic violence conviction. Several aspects of court’s

statements clearly indicate that the trial court would still impose an upper term on

remand.

       The court prefaced its ruling by explaining it intended to “throw the book” at

defendant. The court stated that, if defendant’s conduct “doesn’t call for the maximum, I

don’t know what conduct, what actions” would. In the court’s view, the defendant was a

“violent” and “very dangerous man” and the “opposite” of a “poster child . . . for

imposing . . . leniency.” The trial court thus expressly imposed an “[u]pper term because

defendant promised to be a law-abiding citizen and show up for the court date,” but he

“decided to commit a heinous crime, the most heinous crime you could commit, taking

someone else’s life. Upper term.”

       The trial court’s statements show that there is no chance that the defendant would

receive a lighter sentence on remand because the court made clear that it intended to

                                             7
impose the “maximum” sentence possible on defendant because, in the court’s view,

defendant deserved no leniency. We therefore conclude that any error in the trial court’s

alleged failure to apply amended section 1170, subdivision (b) was harmless under any

standard.

                                           IV.

                                     DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                              CODRINGTON
                                                                                        J.

We concur:

MILLER
                Acting P. J.

FIELDS
                          J.

                                            8