Court Opinion

ID: 9404704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 21:04:55.397265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.452092
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/23/23 P. v. Victoria CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F083538
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                              (Super. Ct. No. MF013928A)
                    v.

    RICHARD VICTORIA,                                                                     OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John R.
Brownlee, Judge.
         Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Kimberley
A. Donohue, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
       Defendant Richard Victoria contends on appeal that (1) his sentence must be
vacated and remanded for resentencing because Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021–2022
Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 124) and Senate Bill No. 567’s (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)
(Senate Bill 567) amendments to Penal Code section 11701 must be applied to his case.
The People agree, as do we. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for
resentencing in light of amended section 1170. In all other respects, we affirm the
judgment.
                              PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
       On August 28, 2020, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information
charging defendant with sexual intercourse/sodomy with Jane Doe,2 a child under
10 years of age (§ 288.7, subd. (a); count 1); oral copulation/sexual penetration of a child
under 10 years of age (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 2 through 7); lewd or lascivious acts
with a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 8); knowingly inducing,
persuading, or coercing a child under 18 years of age to participate in the production of
pornography for commercial purposes (§ 311.4, subd. (b); counts 9 through 12); and
distribution of child pornography (§311.1, subd. (a); count 13).
       On August 31, 2020, defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges. Subsequently,
on May 28, 2021, the information was amended to allege counts 1 through 13 occurred
on or between September 7, 2018 and September 7, 2019.
       On June 9, 2021, the cause was submitted to the jury. Later that day, the jury
found defendant guilty of all charges.
       On November 3, 2021, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to
a total prison term of 129 years 8 months to life (115 years indeterminate, plus 14 years
8 months determinate) as follows: on count 1, 25 years to life; on counts 2 through 7,

1      All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2      All counts against defendant involved Jane Doe.

                                             2.
15 years to life each, consecutive; on count 8, 10 years (the upper term), stayed pursuant
to section 654; on count 9, eight years (the upper term), consecutive; on counts 10
through 12, two years (one-third the midterm) each, consecutive; and on count 13,
eight months (one-third the midterm), consecutive. Defendant was given 615 days total
custody credits and ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4,
subdivision (b), and a restitution fine of $300 pursuant to section 1202.45, the latter of
which was suspended pending successful completion of parole. As to all counts except
count 8, defendant was ordered to pay a $300 fine with penalty assessments of $930 and
additional fees of $40 and $30 per count. As to count 8, defendant was ordered to pay
fees of $40 and $30.
       On November 3, 2021, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                 FACTUAL SUMMARY
       In 2019, defendant lived with his uncle, L.J., L.J.’s girlfriend, Danielle, and
Danielle’s children, Jane Doe and her brother. Defendant, born September 5, 1999, was
19 or 20 years old when he lived with Jane Doe.
       Defendant repeatedly sexually molested Jane Doe, who was between four and
five years old, and took pornographic photos of her while he lived with her. Defendant
raped and sodomized Jane Doe and sexually penetrated her genitalia. He also had
Jane Doe masturbate and orally copulate him. When she tired of masturbating him, he
told her to “use [her] mouth.”
       Jane Doe testified that defendant touched her “private parts” on multiple occasions
and that it was painful. She did not tell anyone at the time because defendant told her not
to. He showed her photographs on his phone of “kids doing stuff with grown-ups and
grown-ups doing stuff with other grown-ups.” During an interview with a child
protective services employee, Jane Doe said that defendant touched her in various places
on her body, including her vagina, and that his touching hurt. She said that defendant put
his penis in her vagina. In response to questions, she indicated that defendant touched his

                                             3.
“wiener” and his hands to her “crotch.” To describe the molestation, she drew a number
of pictures, including one of defendant’s ejaculate and one of defendant’s penis
penetrating her vagina. She also said that defendant had tried to take photographs, but it
did not work because “he had been hurting my crotch a lot.”
       Defendant was arrested after a federal child exploitation task force discovered that
he had shared 15 images of child pornography with L.J. through a social media website.
       In interviews with investigators, defendant admitted taking the photographs of
Jane Doe, touching her buttocks both over and under her clothing, and touching her
vagina and breast area. He admitted that Jane Doe touched his penis. Defendant denied
any digital or penile penetration, but he admitted masturbating Jane Doe, asking her to
orally copulate him (though she refused), sharing images of Jane Doe in online chat sites
and with L.J. via a social media website, ejaculating on Jane Doe’s back, and asking her
not to tell anyone. He stated that he touched her inappropriately on three or four different
occasions. The investigation revealed 64 distinct images of Jane Doe on L.J.’s phone,
including some that displayed penile penetration of Jane Doe’s genitalia.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Defendant contends his sentence must be vacated and remanded to the trial court
for resentencing because Assembly Bill 124 and Senate Bill 567’s amendments to
section 1170 must be applied to his case. The People agree, as do we.
       A.     Background
       The probation report listed the following circumstances in aggravation: (1) that
defendant’s offenses involved taking advantage of a position of trust, and (2) that he
engaged in violent conduct, indicating a serious danger to society. In mitigation, the
probation report noted that defendant had no prior criminal record. The report
recommended defendant be incarcerated in state prison.
       At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation, noting that defendant’s
conduct was “egregious” in light of Jane Doe’s age. It relied on the probation officer’s

                                             4.
recommendation, referencing the two aggravating factors listed in the probation report.
Defendant was sentenced to the upper term of eight years on count 9, followed by
consecutive sentences of two years (one-third the midterm) on each of counts 10 through
12, and a consecutive sentence of eight months (one-third the midterm) on count 13.
       B.     Law
       Assembly Bill 124 amended section 1170, specifically mandating the sentencing
court to consider “youth” as a mitigating factor in deciding which term to impose.
Section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) now reads:

               “[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
       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.

              “(B) The person is a youth, or was a youth as defined under
       subdivision (b) of [s]ection 1016.7 at the time of the commission of the
       offense.

              “(C) Prior to the instant offense, or at the time of the commission of
       the offense, the person is or was a victim of intimate partner violence or
       human trafficking.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6)(A)-(C).)
       Section 1016.7, subdivision (b) provides that “[a] ‘youth’ for purposes of this
section includes any person under 26 years of age on the date the offense was
committed.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 4.)
       C.     Analysis
       Assembly Bill 124 went into effect on January 1, 2022. Absent evidence to the
contrary, the Legislature intends amendments to statutes that reduce the punishment for a
particular crime to apply to all defendants whose judgments are not yet final on the
amendment’s operative date. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299,

                                              5.
307–308 [discussing In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada)]; People v. Brown
(2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 323.) The “consideration of paramount importance” is whether
the amendment lessens punishment. (Estrada, at pp. 744–745.) If so, the “inevitable
inference [is] that the Legislature must have intended that the new statute” apply
retroactively. (Estrada, at p. 745.) As Assembly Bill 124’s amendments to section 1170,
subdivision (b) lessen punishment, and there is no indication that the Legislature intended
it to apply prospectively only, the new law must be retroactively applied. Therefore, the
amendment to section 1170, subdivision (b) applies to all cases not final on Assembly
Bill 124’s effective date. (Estrada, at pp. 745–746; People v. Flores (2022)
73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1039.)
       As the parties agree, defendant’s case was not final on January 1, 2022, he was
19 or 20 years old when he committed his offenses, and he was sentenced to the upper
term on count 9 and one-third the midterm on counts 10 through 13. We agree.
Defendant is entitled to the benefit of Assembly Bill 124.
       Further, as defendant was sentenced to the upper term on count 9 and one-third the
midterm on counts 10 through 13, and the offenses were committed when he was 19 or
20 years old, we agree with the parties that remand for resentencing is the appropriate
remedy. Section 1170, subdivision (b) now requires imposition of the lower term on
counts 9 through 13 if defendant was a “youth” (i.e., under 26 years old) “at the time of
the commission of the offense,” “unless the court finds that the aggravating
circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances [such] that imposition of the lower
term would be contrary to the interests of justice[.]” (§§ 1016.7, subd. (b), 1170,
subd. (b)(6)(B).) Because defendant was 19 or 20 years old at the time he committed the
offenses, the trial court is now required to examine whether his age “was a contributing
factor in the commission of the offense[s]” that would require “imposition of the lower
term[.]” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6)(B).)

                                             6.
       However, amended section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) also requires the trial court to
balance the aggravating and mitigating factors, and permits the court to impose the
middle or upper term if it determines that “the aggravating circumstances outweigh the
mitigating circumstances [such] that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to
the interests of justice[.]” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6).) Accordingly, while defendant is
entitled to have the court reconsider its sentencing in light of amended section 1170,
subdivision (b)(6)(B), taking his “youth” into account as a mitigating circumstance, it
does not entitle defendant to an automatic reduction to his term.
       This matter is remanded for the trial court to resentence defendant consistent with
the amendments made to section 1170 under the authority granted by Assembly Bill 124.
We express no opinion on how the court should rule.3
                                     DISPOSITION
       We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in light of amended
section 1170, subdivision (b). In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

3      Senate Bill 567 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).) As Senate Bill 567’s
amendments to section 1170, subdivision (b) lessen punishment, and there is no
indication that the Legislature intended it to apply prospectively only, the new law must
be retroactively applied. (See People v. Superior Court (Lara), supra, 4 Cal.5th at
pp 307–308 [discussing Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d 740].) Upon resentencing, if the trial
court determines that a lower term is not appropriate pursuant to section 1170,
subdivision (b)(6), as amended by Assembly Bill 124, and again decides to impose the
upper term, the sentencing should comply with the requirements of section 1170,
subdivision (b)(1) and (2), as amended by Senate Bill 567.

                                             7.