Court Opinion

ID: 9399980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 22:04:04.38865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.297599
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/6/23 P. v. Smith 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F084446
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                           (Kern Super. Ct. No. BF188205A)
                    v.

 JOSEPH SMITH,                                                                            OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Gloria J.
Cannon, Judge.
         Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., 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, Ivan P. Marrs, and Chelsea
Zaragoza, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-
       Defendant and appellant Joseph Smith was convicted of drawing or exhibiting a
deadly weapon to resist arrest, misdemeanor vandalism and several counts for interfering
with a peace officer. Defendant contends (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the
jury’s finding that he brandished a deadly weapon to resist arrest; (2) the trial court erred
in failing to provide detailed instructions on whether the ax in defendant’s possession
constituted a deadly weapon; and (3) resentencing is required because the trial court
found no aggravating factors before imposing the upper term on his revocation of
probation. The People respond that there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction
for brandishing a deadly weapon to resist arrest. The People concede the trial court erred
in including the inherently deadly weapon instruction because an ax is not an “inherently
deadly weapon” but argue that the error was harmless because the instruction included a
valid theory of guilt. Lastly, the People contend that defendant forfeited his objection to
his sentence by failing to object at the time of sentencing but concede that remand is
warranted for resentencing if the claim is not forfeited. We affirm.

                              PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
       On December 20, 2021, in case No. BF188205A , the District Attorney of Kern
County filed an information charging defendant with vandalism in excess of $400 (Pen.
Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1);1 count 1); drawing or exhibiting a deadly weapon to resist
arrest (§ 417.8, subd. (a)(1); count 2); and misdemeanor interfering with a peace officer
(§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, the information alleged that
defendant had suffered one prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three
Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), which also qualified as a
serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)).2

       1
       All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
       The trial was bifurcated for the prior conviction at defendant’s request.
       2
Defendant waived his right to a jury trial regarding his prior conviction.
                                              2.
       Following trial, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to reduce count 1 to a
misdemeanor per section 1118.1 because there was insufficient evidence to support a
felony conviction. (§ 1118.1.) The court also dismissed the prior strike conviction
allegation on count 1. The court found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to
decide if defendant brandished a deadly weapon to resist arrest and therefore denied
defendant’s request to dismiss count 2. The court granted the prosecution’s motion to
amend the information to allege four additional counts of interfering with a peace officer
(§ 148, subd. (a)(1); counts 4–7).
       On April 19, 2022, the jury found defendant guilty on all counts. In a bifurcated
proceeding, the trial court found true the prior conviction allegations.
       On June 2, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of four
years as follows: four years (the low term of two years doubled per the prior strike) on
count 2; one year on count 1 to run concurrently with sentence for count 2; and one year
each on counts 3 through 7 to run concurrently, stayed per section 654.
       On February 7, 2019, in another matter, Bakersfield Superior Court case
No. BF174179A, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence for a violation of
section 422 and granted defendant three years’ probation. On June 2, 2022, the trial court
found that defendant had violated his probation by committing the offenses in Bakersfield
Superior Court case No. BF188205A. The court revoked defendant’s probation and
sentenced him to three years (the upper term) on that conviction to run concurrently with
the sentence in the Bakersfield Superior Court case No. BF188205A.
       On June 7, 2022, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal with respect to
Bakersfield Superior Court case No. BF188205A.3

       3 Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal, appealing from the judgment
entered on June 2, 2022. However, she identified only Bakersfield Superior Court case
No. BF188205A, but not Bakersfield Superior Court case No. BF174179A. The sentence
in both cases was entered on the same date and defendant’s present appeal challenges the
judgment in both cases. The People noted that a notice of appeal was filed only in
Bakersfield Superior Court case No. BF188205A, yet voiced no objection to
                                              3.
                                FACTUAL SUMMARY
       Defendant’s neighbor, R.A., lived in Bakersfield with his wife, son, and
granddaughter. On November 25, 2021, R.A. had a work holiday but still woke up at
2:00 a.m. as he normally does.4 He got up and watched television. At around 3:15 a.m.,
R.A. went back to bed. R.A. heard a “big thump” on the side of the house “three or four”
minutes later. A “few seconds” later he heard a louder thump on the side of the house.
       R.A. got up and opened the blinds to look in front of the house. He did not see
anything outside from his room, so R.A. went to his son’s room. R.A.’s son had not
stayed at home that night. R.A. looked out a door in his son’s room and saw two rocks
laying in the driveway. He then saw defendant walk around the corner with a baseball
bat and a 5-to-6-inch diameter rock in his hand. Defendant raised back the bat with one
hand and threw the rock towards the window of R.A.’s son’s room. R.A. “jumped down
on the ground” behind a dresser and television set. The rock came through the window
shattering glass onto R.A. The rock ripped the window blinds apart and created a hole in
the wall inside the room, ultimately landing on R.A.’s son’s bed. R.A. called 911 to
report the incident.5
       Kern County Sheriff’s Deputies Zachary Richmond and Daniel Rickard were
dispatched to defendant’s house to conduct a vandalism investigation. Rickard requested
a records check on defendant over the radio and was advised that defendant was on active

consideration of argument in Bakersfield Superior Court case No. BF174179A. The
People would not be prejudiced by our consideration of defendant’s argument in the latter
case. For those reasons, we liberally construe defendant’s notice of appeal as an appeal
from both judgments. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(a)(4) [“The notice of appeal
must be liberally construed”].)
        4 R.A. sets his alarm for 2:00 a.m. because his reporting time for work is 4:00 a.m.
Even if his alarm is off, R.A. testified that he still wakes up at 2:00 a.m.
        5 R.A.’s neighbor directly across the street from his house captured video footage
of the incident, which was admitted as evidence at trial.
                                             4.
probation.6
      Deputy Richmond knocked on defendant’s door and identified the deputies as
from the sheriff’s office. Deputy Rickard told defendant to come outside. Defendant
refused. Rickard told defendant that he was on probation and under arrest for vandalism,
so he needed to come out of the house. Defendant denied vandalizing anything and
refused to come out. The deputies repeatedly asked defendant to come out of the house. 7
Defendant said multiple times that he was not coming out and was not going to jail.
Rickard tried to kick the front door open but was unable to open the door. He believed
the door was barricaded because the door did not budge when he kicked it and based on
movement heard in the house prior to Rickard’s attempt to kick the door in.
      While Deputy Rickard tried to get defendant to come out, Deputy Richmond
watched defendant in the house through a window. Richmond saw defendant continually
walking to and from the hallway holding an ax in his right hand down toward his waist. 8
One of the deputies told defendant to put the ax down. Defendant responded: “You’re
not taking me. I didn’t do anything.” Richmond also tried to speak with defendant to get
him to come out. Further exchanges between defendant and the deputies included the
following:

      “[Defendant]: …I’m under arrest.

      “UNKNOWN DEPUTY: Yes. You are under arrest.

      “[Defendant]: I’m the victim.

      6   Defendant’s probation included search terms requiring that he submit voluntarily
to a search of his person, vehicle, or residence at the request of a peace officer without
the necessity of a search warrant or probable cause.
        7 The deputies were wearing body cameras, which recorded their exchanges with
defendant. Portions of the video footage from the deputies’ cameras were admitted into
evidence.
        8 Deputy Richmond also referred to the object as a “large hatchet.” Richmond
testified that he considered the word hatchet synonymous with a small ax.
                                            5.
       “UNKNOWN DEPUTY: That is not gonna change no matter what you say
       or do.

       “[Defendant]: You want to bet?

       “UNKNOWN DEPUTY: Yes.

       “[Defendant]: You want to f[***]in’ bet?

       “UNKNOWN DEPUTY: Yes. It’s gonna – you’re gonna be the...

       […]

       “UNKNOWN DEPUTY: You’re gonna be under arrest no matter what.

       “[Defendant]: I’m not – I am not going to let you do that to me. I think
       I’m very clear.

       “UNKNOWN DEPUTY: Can’t see.

       “[Defendant]: I don’t have to put up with that shit. And I’m not gonna.
       F[**]k that.

       “UNKNOWN DEPUTY: No matter what you say, Joseph, you’re under
       arrest.

       “[Defendant]: You want to bet? You want to f[***]in’ bet, homeboy?

       “UNKNOWN DEPUTY: You are under arrest, Joseph. Yes.

       “[Defendant]: You want to bet?
       At one point defendant raised the ax and hit the wall with it. Deputy Richmond
also saw defendant holding a large knife.
       The standoff between defendant and the deputies continued for approximately
three hours. The Kern County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team was dispatched to
defendant’s house. Deputy Rogelio Medina with the SWAT team testified that there are
criteria that must be met before the SWAT team will be called out including the severity
of the crime, the threat the subject has posed to the deputies involved , and the weapons
that have been used during the crime. Medina told defendant through a public address
sound system (PA system) on the patrol vehicle to come out of the house several times to

                                             6.
no avail. The SWAT team breached the front door of defendant’s house with equipment
attached to its armored vehicle. The front door of defendant’s house came off its hinges.
Molina saw defendant run from the living room through the hallway. The deputies told
defendant several times to exit the house, but he would not comply. Molina deployed a
“less lethal” weapon and hit defendant in the torso. Defendant came out of the house on
his own and was arrested.

                                       DISCUSSION
I.     Sufficiency of the Evidence
       Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude he
brandished a deadly weapon to resist arrest.
       A.     Standard of Review
       “To assess the evidence’s sufficiency, we review the whole record to determine
whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or
special circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The record must disclose
substantial evidence to support the verdict – i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and
of solid value – such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence
of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.]
‘Conflicts and even testimony [that] is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the
reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to
determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a
determination depends. [Citation.] We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary
conflicts; we look for substantial evidence. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] A reversal for
insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever
is there sufficient substantial evidence to support” ’ the jury’s verdict.” (People v.
Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)

                                               7.
       B.     Applicable Law and Analysis
       The elements of the offense under section 417.8 are “(1) the drawing or exhibiting
of a firearm or a deadly weapon, (2) with the intent to resist or prevent arrest or detention
of oneself or another by a peace officer.” (People v. Simons (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1100,
1109.) A violation of section 417.8 does not require the arrest was lawful or the officer
was engaged in the performance of his or her duties. (Simons, at pp. 1109–1110.) “The
chief evil to be avoided by criminalizing exhibition of weapons is the potential for further
violence, not only by the defendant, but also by others in response to the defendant’s
action.” (Id. at p. 1109.) Defendant concedes he may have willfully resisted the
deputies’ attempts to take him into custody but contends he did not brandish a deadly
weapon within the meaning of section 417.8.
       It is well established that there are two classes of deadly weapons: “ ‘first, those
instrumentalities which are weapons in the strict sense of the word, and, second, those
instrumentalities which are not weapons in the strict sense of the word, but which may be
used as such. The instrumentalities falling in the first class, such as guns, dirks and
blackjacks, which are weapons in the strict sense of the word and are “dangerous or
deadly” to others in the ordinary use for which they are designed, may be said as a matter
of law to be “dangerous or deadly weapons.” This is true as the ordinary use for which
they are designed establishes their character as such. The instrumentalities falling into
the second class, such as ordinary razors, pocket-knives, hatpins, canes, hammers,
hatchets and other sharp or heavy objects, which are not weapons in the strict sense of the
word and are not “dangerous or deadly” to others in the ordinary use for which they are
designed, may not be said as a matter of law to be “dangerous or deadly weapons.”
When it appears, however, that an instrumentality other than one falling within the first
class is capable of being used in a “dangerous or deadly” manner, and it may be fairly
inferred from the evidence that its possessor intended on a particular occasion to use it as
a weapon should the circumstances require, … its character as a “dangerous or deadly

                                             8.
weapon” may be thus established, at least for the purposes of that occasion.’ ” (People v.
Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303, 327–328 (Graham).)
        Defendant did not argue at trial and does not argue here that the ax did not
constitute a deadly weapon under section 417.8. An ax is not an inherently deadly
weapon because its ordinary use, such as to chop wood, is not dangerous or deadly as a
matter of law. (Graham, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 327 [referring to “hatchets” among
examples of objects that are not a deadly weapon in the strict sense of the word].) 9 An ax
constitutes a deadly weapon under section 417.8 if it is “capable of deadly use and … the
defendant intends to so use it if need be.” (People v. Simons, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1107 [a screwdriver used by defendant to resist arrest was a deadly weapon]; see also
People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 6 (Aledamat) [“ ‘In determining whether an
object not inherently deadly or dangerous is used as such, the trier of fact may consider
the nature of the object, the manner in which it is used, and all other facts relevant to the
issue.’ ”].)
        Where an object that is a weapon as a matter of law “is drawn or exhibited in the
presence of a peace officer, the intent to use it to resist arrest or detention may be
established solely from the context in which it is drawn or exhibited (i.e., after a subject
is told to raise his or her hands or that he or she is under arrest), regardless of the manner
in which the weapon is drawn or exhibited. [¶] Likewise, where the instrument is not a
deadly weapon as a matter of law, the intent to use it for the purpose of resisting arrest or
detention can be inferred from the context in which it is drawn (again, for example, when
a subject is told to raise his or her hands or that he or she is under arrest).” (People v.
Pruett (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 77, 87 (Pruett).) Since an ax is not a deadly weapon as a
matter of law whether defendant intended to use the ax to resist arrest may be inferred

        9Deputy Richmond referred to the object interchangeably as a hatchet and an ax.
We do not discern a meaningfully distinction between the two based on the object
defendant used and the circumstances in this case. (See American Heritage Dict. (5th
desk ed. 2013) p. 388, col. 1 [hatchet is defined as “[a] small, short-handled ax”].)
                                              9.
from the context in which it was drawn. (Ibid.)
       Defendant contends that brandishing requires more than mere possession of the
weapon and there is no evidence he displayed the ax in a menacing manner to any of the
officers. Unlike other brandishing offenses (e.g., § 417),10 section 417.8 does not require
that defendant displayed the ax in a rude, angry, or threatening way to the officers. 11 The
court in Pruett held that misdemeanor brandishing under section 417 is not a lesser
included offense of section 417.8 because section 417 “requires that a defendant draw or
exhibit a deadly weapon in a ‘rude, angry or threatening manner’ and … section 417.8
does not include such terminology.” (Pruett, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 87.) Unlike for
a violation of section 417, “it is not necessary that the instrument be drawn or exhibited
in a specific way – that is, in a ‘rude, angry or threatening manner’ – to constitute a
violation of section 417.8.” (Pruett, at p. 88.) It is thus sufficient that defendant
exhibited or drew the ax in a way from which it could be inferred that he intended to use
it to resist arrest to show a violation of section 417.8. (Id. at p. 87.)
       Defendant was holding the ax in his hand while arguing with the deputies about
coming out of his house. The deputies asked him to put down the ax, to which he
responded: “You’re not taking me. I didn’t do anything.” Defendant raised the ax and
hit the wall with it at one point. He was also seen holding a knife. Defendant repeatedly
said he would not come out and refused to do so for more than three hours. He
sometimes used threatening language in response to the deputies saying he was under
arrest and said multiple times he was not going to be arrested or go to jail. There were

       10 Section 417, subdivision (a)(1) provides: “Every person who, except in self-
defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon
whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any
manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30
days.”
       11 “[B]randishing consists of drawing or exhibiting, in the presence of another
person, any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, [or deadly weapon] in a rude, angry or
threatening manner.” (People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 542, italics added.)
                                               10.
indications that defendant barricaded his front door. Defendant was also on probation
and subject to search of his residence with or without probable cause or a warrant. The
lengthy standoff, defendant’s hostile responses to the deputies’ repeated requests to come
out and hitting the ax against the wall reflect that defendant would not willingly be taken
into custody. His threatening language indicated an intent to resort to force to resist
arrest. The SWAT team was ultimately required to be dispatched to remove defendant’s
door and compel him to surrender. Even after the SWAT team removed defendant’s
front door from its hinges, defendant initially ran away inside his house. A rational trier
of fact could infer by defendant’s obstinate conduct and threatening language that he
intended to use the ax to resist arrest.
       Defendant argues that the trial court’s interpretation of the evidence at sentencing
supports that although he was in possession of the ax, he did not brandish it within the
meaning of section 417.8.12 The trial court is required to “state the reasons for its
sentence choice on the record at the time of sentencing.” (§ 1170, subd. (c); see also Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 4.406(b).) In selecting between the middle and lower terms of
imprisonment, the court may consider circumstances in aggravation or mitigation
including factors relating to the crime. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.420(d), 4.421,
4.423.) The court’s discussion of the evidence during sentencing suggest it found
circumstances in mitigation warranted imposition of the low term of four years for his
conviction on section 417.8. That the trial court found circumstances in mitigation
related to the crime does not mean the evidence is insufficient to support defendant’s
conviction. The inquiry is whether “any rational trier of fact” could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Zamudio, supra,

       12  At the time of sentencing, the trial court stated: “The brandishing that the jury
found him guilty of was an ax that he had in his hand when the officers were securing the
premises and looked through the window and saw him with this ax in his hand.· He never
held it up to an officer.· He never waved it at an officer.· He never threatened an officer
with it, but instead the – clearly the jury found him guilty of having the ax during the
commission of refusing to come out of his home, and that is the verdict.”
                                             11.
43 Cal.4th at p. 357.) As discussed above, a rational trier of fact could have found that
defendant exhibited or drew the ax to resist arrest in violation of section 417.8. There is
thus substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
II.    Instructional Error
       Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to provide the jury with
detailed instructions regarding whether the ax constituted a deadly weapon under section
417.8. The People concede the trial court erred in including the inherently deadly
weapon instruction because an ax is not an inherently deadly weapon. However, the
People argue that the error was harmless because the instruction included a valid theory
of guilt.
       A.     Additional Background
       The trial court defined for the jury a deadly weapon using CALCRIM No. 982 in
its instructions on the charge of violating section 417.8: “A deadly weapon is any object,
instrument or weapon that is inherently deadly or that is used in such a way that is
capable of causing or likely to cause death or great bodily injury.· An object that [sic] is
inherently deadly is [sic] if it is deadly or dangerous in its ordinary use for which it was
designed. [¶] Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury.· It is
an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.” Defendant did not object to this
instruction at trial or request amplification of the definition of a deadly weapon.
       B.     Applicable Law and Analysis
       We review defendant’s claim of instructional error de novo. (People v. Mitchell
(2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579.)13 “A trial court has a duty to instruct, sua sponte, when a
term used in the instructions has ‘a technical meaning peculiar to the law....’ ” (Pruett,
supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 81.) “The general rule which provides that in defining the
elements of a crime it is enough for the court to instruct in the language of the statute

       13 The People do not argue that defendant forfeited his objection to the jury
instructions by failing to object at trial and we do not address the issue of forfeiture.
                                              12.
when the defendant fails to request an amplification thereof [citation] will not prevail
when the jury would have difficulty in understanding and applying the statute. Under
such circumstances, a court must give additional guidance and clarification on its own
motion.” (Graham, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 329.)
          The “term ‘deadly weapon’ has taken on a technical meaning in certain contexts.”
(Pruett, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 82.) As discussed above, there are objects that are
inherently deadly weapons (such as a gun). (Graham, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 327.) An
object that is not an inherently deadly weapon constitutes a deadly weapon where it is
“ ‘capable’ of being used in a deadly fashion,” and the defendant intends “that it serve
such a purpose when the crime is committed.” (Pruett, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 85.)
Where the object used is not an inherently deadly weapon, “an instruction which
establishes [the object’s] nature (‘deadly’ or not) by reference to its use may be required.”
(Ibid.)
          To decide whether defendant exhibited or drew a deadly weapon to resist arrest in
violation of section 417.8, the jury was required to determine if the ax was a deadly
weapon. The jury instructions defined a deadly weapon as “any object, instrument or
weapon that is inherently deadly or that is used in such a way that is capable of causing or
likely to cause death or great bodily injury.” The instructions further defined “inherently
deadly” as an object that is “deadly or dangerous in its ordinary use for which it was
designed.”
          The trial court provided the jury with two possible theories of guilt: (1) that the ax
was inherently deadly or (2) that defendant used the ax in a deadly way. The instruction
accurately stated the law. However, an ax is not an inherently deadly weapon.14 The
first theory was consequently erroneous on the facts. (See Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at
p. 3 [inclusion of inherently deadly weapon instruction for assault with a box cutter was
“erroneous under the facts” since a box cutter is not a deadly weapon as a matter of law];

          14   The People concede that an ax is not an inherently deadly weapon.
                                               13.
see also People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton) [“error to give an
instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the
facts of the case”].) The second theory was correct.
       Our Supreme Court in Aledamat addressed the standard of review where the trial
court commits an alternative-theory error by providing two theories of guilt, one correct
and one incorrect. (Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at pp. 7, fn. 3, 9–13.) The defendant in
Aledamat thrust a box cutter at the victim while saying, “ ‘ “I’ll kill you.” ’ ” (Id. at pp.
4–5.) He was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245) and making criminal
threats (§ 422). (Aledamat, at p. 5.) The trial court “defined ‘a deadly weapon’ as ‘any
object, instrument, or weapon that is inherently deadly or one that is used in such a way
that it is capable of causing and likely to cause death or … great bodily injury.’ ” (Id. at
p. 4.) Because the defendant used a box cutter in the assault – not an inherently deadly
weapon – the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in providing the jury with two
theories by which it could find the box cutter a deadly weapon, one correct and one
incorrect. (Id. at p. 7.)
       The Supreme Court then distinguished between two categories of incorrect
theories: legal and factual. (Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 7.) “ ‘A legal error is an
incorrect statement of law, whereas a factual error is an otherwise valid legal theory that
is not supported by the facts or evidence in a case. [Citation.] Between the two, legal
error requires a more stringent standard for prejudice, for jurors are presumed to be less
able to identify and ignore an incorrect statement of law due to their lack of formal legal
training. [Citation.] Factual errors, on the other hand, are less likely to be prejudicial
because jurors are generally able to evaluate the facts of a case and ignore factually
inapplicable theories.’ ” (Id. at p. 8.) The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court
committed a legal error because a box cutter is not inherently deadly as a matter of law
and the jury was never provided with a definition of “inherently deadly.” (Id.; see also
People v. Stutelberg (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 314, 318–319 [trial court committed legal

                                              14.
error where the jury was never provided with a definition of “inherently deadly” for an
assault committed with a box cutter].) “Because the trial court … did not define what
‘inherently deadly’ meant, the jury would not be equipped to know that, contrary to what
the instruction suggested, a box cutter is not an inherently deadly weapon.” (Aledamat,
supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 8.) The Court concluded this type of “alternative-theory error is
subject to the more general [Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18] harmless error
test. The reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless, after examining the entire
cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines
the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Id. at p. 13.) Applying this
standard, the Court found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at pp. 13–
15.)
       The People argue that the trial court here committed solely a factual error because
the court did include the definition of “inherently deadly” in the jury instructions. (See
Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 8 [noting that the error would be factual if the trial court
had instructed the jury that only a few items that are designed to be used as deadly
weapons are inherently deadly].) Where the trial court provides an instruction that
correctly states the law, but the instruction does not apply to the facts, the error is “one of
state law subject to the traditional [People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818] test
applicable to such error.” (Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1130.)
       Defendant argues that the error is subject to the Chapman standard because the
trial court did not provide additional instruction to the jury for how to determine whether
the ax was employed in a manner to support a conviction under section 417.8. The trial
court instructed the jury on the definition of a deadly weapon as “any object, instrument
or weapon … that is used in such a way that is capable of causing and likely to cause
death or great bodily injury.”15 The instructions delineated that: “Great bodily injury

       15  The instruction the trial court gave the jury mirrors the model jury instruction
for violating section 417.8 (CALCRIM No. 982).
                                              15.
means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor
or moderate harm.” The jury necessarily had to determine if defendant used the ax in a
way capable of causing or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to find defendant
guilty under this theory. This is essentially the same inquiry as determining whether an
ax is “ ‘capable’ of being used in a deadly fashion,” and the defendant intends “that it
serve such a purpose when the crime is committed.” (Pruett, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at
p. 85.) Defendant could have requested amplification of this instruction. 16 His failure to
do so does not render the error here of federal constitutional dimensions on appeal. (See
People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218 [“Generally, a party may not complain on
appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or
incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying
language”].)
       Assuming arguendo the instruction here amounted to a legal error, the Supreme
Court in Aledamat expressly rejected the more stringent test advocated by defendant that
an alternative-theory “error requires reversal unless there is a basis in the record to find
that ‘the jury has “actually” relied upon the valid theory ….’ ” (Aledamat, supra, 8
Cal.5th at p. 9.) Even if the error is treated as a legal one, we examine the entire cause,
including the evidence, and consider all relevant circumstances in determining whether
the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at p. 10.) “[A] reviewing court
must be persuaded that, in light of the jury’s findings and the evidence at trial, any
rational juror who made those findings would have made the additional findings
necessary for a valid theory of liability, beyond a reasonable doubt, if the jury had been
properly instructed. [Citation.] If the reviewing court determines beyond a reasonable

       16 CALCRIM No. 982 offers the following bracketed instruction: “In deciding
whether an object is a deadly weapon, consider all the surrounding circumstances.” Jury
instructions in brackets “provide optional choices that may be necessary or appropriate,
depending on the individual circumstances of the case.” (Judicial Council of Cal.,
Criminal Jury Instn. (2022) p. xxvi.)
                                             16.
doubt that any rational juror would have made the additional findings, based on the jury’s
actual verdict and the evidence at trial, the error is harmless because the presentation of
the invalid theory to the jury made no difference. The error did not contribute to the
verdict.” (In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 589.) We conclude the error here was
harmless.
       The jury instructions defined an inherently deadly weapon as “deadly or
dangerous in its ordinary use for which it was designed.” The jury was further instructed
that “[s]ome words or phrases used during this trial have legal meanings that are different
from their meanings in everyday use. These words and phrases will be specifically
defined in these instructions.” The instructions elsewhere stated: “Some of these
instructions may not apply, depending on your findings about the facts of the case.” The
jury was provided with a theory of guilt that the ax was an inherently deadly weapon, a
theory that was erroneous on the facts. However, the jury could reasonably have
concluded that this theory was not applicable based on the definition given of an
inherently deadly weapon, as well as the instruction that some instructions may not apply
depending on the jury’s findings. (See e.g., Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1129 [reversal
is not required for a factually inadequate theory where there remains a valid ground for
the verdict because the jury is fully equipped to detect inadequacy of proof that is purely
factual].)
       As noted, the alternative theory instructed upon in this case required finding that
the ax was “used in such a way that it is capable of causing and likely to cause death or
great bodily injury.” As in Aledamat, whether the ax was a deadly weapon was
essentially uncontested. (Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 14 [“Although defense counsel
did not expressly concede that the box cutter was a deadly weapon, he did not contest the
point”].) Defendant did not argue that the ax was not a deadly weapon. Based on the
photograph of the ax such an argument would have been futile. (Ibid. [futile to argue the
box cutter was not a deadly weapon].) Instead, defense counsel focused on whether

                                             17.
defendant brandished the ax within the meaning of section 417.8, an argument the jury
necessarily rejected when it found defendant drew or exhibited a deadly weapon with the
intent to resist arrest.17 “[D]rawing or exhibiting an instrument which is ‘capable’ of
killing another with the intent to resist arrest or detention is sufficient to establish both
that the instrument in question was a deadly ‘weapon’ (or ‘deadly weapon’) and that its
use constituted a violation of section 417.8.” (Pruett, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87–
88.) Implicit in the jury’s finding that defendant drew or exhibited the ax to resist arrest
is a finding that the ax constituted a deadly weapon as used. (Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th
at pp. 14–15 [harmless error where it would be impossible on the evidence for the jury to
necessarily find what it did without also finding the missing fact as well]; see also In re
Lopez, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 589 [the proper analysis under Aledamat is “whether the
jury could have found what it did find without also making the findings necessary for a
valid theory”].)
       Defendant contends that the People in their final argument repeatedly referred to
the ax as an inherently deadly weapon. This is factually inaccurate. In closing argument,
the prosecutor discussed the ax as a deadly weapon: “A deadly weapon is any object,
instrument or weapon that is inherently deadly or one that is used in such a way that is
capable of causing or likely to cause great death or bodily injury.· I don’t believe there’s
going to be a lot of contention of whether the ax in this situation was a deadly weapon.
We’ve seen the size of the ax. There’s no testimony that this ax wasn’t a real ax, and that

       17   The jury instructions outlined the elements of the offense per CALCRIM
No. 982:
       To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove
       that [¶] 1. The defendant drew or exhibited a deadly weapon [¶] AND [¶] 2.
       When the defendant drew or exhibited the deadly weapon, he intended to
       resist arrest or to prevent a peace officer from arresting or detaining him.
As previously discussed, it is sufficient that defendant exhibited or drew the ax in a way
from which it could be inferred that he intended to use it to resist arrest. (Pruett, supra,
57 Cal.App.4th at p. 87.)

                                              18.
ax was absolutely likely of causing – could cause death or great bodily injury. [¶] An ax
is made for chopping trees, as we all know.· Decent amount of time with that ax, no time
with that ax, one good chop of that ax could definitely do great bodily harm or injury.·
The definition for great bodily harm or injury, it means significant or substantial injury
greater than minor or moderate harm. You can definitely chop off a limb with that ax.”
Rather than compelling the jury to apply an incorrect theory to this charge, the
prosecutor’s closing argument acknowledged that the ordinary use of an ax is chopping.
This argument implicitly recognized that the ax was not an inherently deadly weapon and
that the jury must determine if the ax was capable of causing death or great bodily injury
as part of its inquiry. If anything, the prosecutor’s closing argument steered the jury to
apply the correct theory of guilt rather than the incorrect one. (See People v. Powell
(2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 715–716 [instructional error was harmless in part because the
prosecutor never argued the incorrect legal theory]; Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 14
[unlikely the jury applied the incorrect legal theory where neither counsel “ever
suggested to the jury that there were two separate ways it could decide whether the box
cutter was a deadly weapon”].)
       Defendant contends that the instructional error likely resulted in the jury finding
him guilty based solely on his possession of the ax without making a finding that he used
it as a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 417.8. This argument is essentially a
reiteration of his sufficiency of the evidence argument. We have already rejected this
contention.
       We are convinced the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
No reasonable jury who made the findings in the verdict and heard the evidence at trial
could have failed to make the findings necessary to convict defendant on the valid theory
of the ax as a deadly weapon as used. (In re Lopez, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 589; see also
Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 17 [erroneous instruction is harmless where the
missing element is uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence].)

                                             19.
III.   Sentence for Revocation of Probation
       Defendant contends that remand for resentencing is required because the trial
court found no aggravating factors before imposing the upper term of three years on his
revocation of probation. The People respond that defendant forfeited his objection to
imposition of the upper term by failing to object at the time of sentencing. We agree with
the People that defendant forfeited objection to this sentence.
       A.     Additional Background
       On October 22, 2018, the District Attorney of Kern County charged defendant
with one count of making criminal threats (§ 422) in case No. BF174179A. On January
7, 2019, defendant entered into a plea agreement by which he pled no contest to the
charge in exchange for a three-year probation period. The plea agreement included the
following clause: “If at any time while [defendant is] on probation [he is] found to be in
violation of the terms and conditions of [his] probation, [his] probation could be revoked
and [he] could be sentenced to state prison or a term in the county jail or be placed on
mandatory supervision for the maximum of 3 years.” On February 7, 2019, a sentencing
hearing was held, and the trial court granted defendant probation per the agreement. The
docket reflects that imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on
probation for three years to expire on February 7, 2022. 18
       Defendant was therefore still on probation when he committed the November 25,
2021 offenses (case No. BF188205A). Immediately following the jury’s verdict, the trial
court found defendant violated probation based on his conviction and the evidence related
to those crimes. On June 2, 2022, the court imposed sentence on defendant’s revocation
of probation in case No. BF174179A at the same time sentence was imposed for the
November 25, 2021 offenses. The probation officer’s report recommended defendant’s

       18  The docket reflects multiple hearings for violations of probation between July
12, 2019, and February 3, 2021, but sentence was not imposed in case No. BF174179A
prior to June 2, 2022.
                                            20.
probation be revoked and defendant be sentenced to the upper term of three years in that
case. The court followed this recommendation: “As to the case BF174179A, which is
his revocation matter, Count 1 is Penal Code Section 422. [¶] I’ll revoke his probation in
that matter.· I’ll sentence him to the Department of Corrections for the upper term of
three years.” The sentence was to be served concurrent with defendant’s sentence for
case No. BF188205A. Following the court’s pronouncement of sentence, both parties
confirmed to the court that there was nothing further to address. At no point did
defendant object the sentence imposed or argue that the trial court was required to submit
the facts underlying any aggravating factors to the jury for a finding beyond a reasonable
doubt based on the recent modifications to section 1170.
       B.     Applicable Law and Analysis
       “When the trial court in a criminal case decides at time of sentencing to grant the
defendant probation, the court may either suspend imposition of sentence or actually
impose sentence but suspend its execution. (See … § 1203.1, subd. (a).) If the court has
suspended imposition of sentence and later revokes the defendant’s probation, then the
court has undisputed authority to choose from all the initially available sentencing
options. (§ 1203.2, subd. (c).)” (People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1084, fn.
omitted.)
       Here, defendant was placed on probation in case No. BF174179A with imposition
of sentence suspended. The plea agreement did not specify a prison term to be imposed
if probation was revoked, it merely stated that defendant could be sentenced for up to
three years, the statutory maximum on the sole count for violating section 422. (§§ 422,
subd. (a), 1170, subd. (h)(1).) When the trial court revoked defendant’s probation
following the verdict in the present case, the court had the discretionary authority to
“pronounce judgment for any time within the longest period for which the person might
have been sentenced.” (§ 1203.2, subd. (c); see also Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 4.435(b)(1).) The court’s discretion to impose the lower, middle, or upper term of

                                             21.
imprisonment after defendant’s probation was revoked was not limited by the plea
agreement or a prior imposition and suspension of sentence. (People v. Howard, supra,
16 Cal.4th at p. 1087 [the court “unquestionably … had full sentencing discretion on
revoking probation” when imposition of sentence had been suspended].)
       Defendant contends that recent amendments to section 1170 per Senate Bill
No. 567 (2021−2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) required the court to impose a
sentence no greater than the midterm sentence following revocation of his probation.
Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 567 amended section 1170, subdivision (b).
(Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3.) Prior to its amendment by Senate Bill 567, section 1170
provided, in relevant part: “When a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the
statute specifies three possible terms, the choice of the appropriate term shall rest within
the sound discretion of the court.” (§ 1170, former subd. (b).) Section 1170,
subdivision (b)(2) now provides: “The court may impose a sentence exceeding the
middle term 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.”
A trial court may also rely on certified records of conviction to determine prior
convictions without submitting the matter to a jury. (§ 1170, subd. (b)(3).)
       The trial court imposed sentence in both defendant’s cases on June 2, 2022. The
ameliorative changes wrought by Senate Bill 567 had thus been in effect for
approximately five months when defendant was sentenced. The only discussion during
the sentencing hearing about aggravating or mitigating circumstances were in relation to
defendant’s conviction for violating section 417.8 on November 25, 2021, for which the
court imposed the low term of four years.19 The court did not discuss aggravating

        The probation officer’s report identified no mitigating circumstances and
       19
recommended the trial court find true three aggravating circumstances for sentence on the
                                             22.
circumstances warranting imposition of the upper term for the revocation of probation in
case No. BF174179A or state reasons why the upper term was being imposed.
       Defendant contends the matter should be remanded for resentencing because the
trial court stated no factors in aggravation before imposing the upper term for the
revocation of probation. Defendant did not object at sentencing that the sentence was
inconsistent with Senate Bill 567. He forfeited the issue on appeal by failing to raise the
applicability of Senate Bill 567 after the effective date of amended section 1170. (People
v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351 [lack of a timely and meaningful objection at the time
of sentencing forfeits the claim on appeal]; People v. Flowers (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 680,
683–684, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276237.) The trial court pronounced sentence
and expressly asked the parties if there was anything further to address. Defendant was
thus provided with a meaningful opportunity to object to the sentence but failed to do so.
(People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 752 [“It is only if the trial court fails to give
the parties any meaningful opportunity to object that the Scott rule becomes
inapplicable”].) The court’s failure to state the reasons for imposing the upper term does
not rescue defendant’s claim. (Scott, at p. 352 [defendant cannot complain for the first
time on appeal that the trial court failed to state the reasons for its sentencing choice].)
Nor is the sentence imposed unauthorized by law such that defendant’s failure to object
may be excused. (Id. at p. 354 [appellate courts are willing to intervene in the first
instance to correct a sentence that could not lawfully be imposed].) The three-year
sentence imposed was a lawful term for defendant’s conviction under section 422.
(§§ 422, subd. (a), 1170, subd. (h)(1).)

November 25, 2021 crimes (case No. BF188205A): defendant’s prior convictions were
numerous (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)); defendant was on probation at the time
of the crime (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(4)); and defendant’s prior performance
on probation was unsatisfactory in that he failed to comply with the terms and continued
to reoffend (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(5)).
                                              23.
       In conclusion, defendant forfeited objection to imposition of the upper term on the
revocation of probation by failing to object at the time of sentencing.

                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                               POOCHIGIAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

FRANSON, J.

PEÑA, J.

                                            24.