Court Opinion

ID: 9890586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 17:03:47.506773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:48.092198
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/13/23 P. v. Lentz 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Yuba)
                                                            ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C097842

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. No. CRF22-02669)

           v.

    JASON DION RAY LENTZ,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Jason Dion Ray Lentz appeals an upper term prison sentence imposed
following his no contest plea to failing to appear while on bail (Pen. Code, § 1320.5)1 and
admission that he had suffered a prior strike. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b).)
Defendant complains the trial court’s noncompliance with the changes brought about by
Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) requires reversal for
resentencing. We disagree and affirm.

1        Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On November 30, 2022, the Yuba County District Attorney filed a complaint
charging defendant with failing to appear while on bail (§ 1320.5) with enhancing
allegations that defendant committed the crime while released on bail (§ 12022.1) and
had suffered a prior strike. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12.)
       On January 11, 2023, defendant resolved the matter by pleading no contest and
admitting the prior strike. In exchange, another pending case was dismissed. The plea
agreement called for a stipulated sentence of six years (the upper term of three years,
doubled due to the prior strike).
       In entering this plea, defendant waived numerous rights, including his rights to a
trial, to subpoena and examine witnesses, to testify in his own defense, and against self-
incrimination/to remain silent. The stipulated factual basis for the plea was the trial
court’s file. Defendant requested and received immediate sentencing whereupon the trial
court imposed the agreed-upon term of six years. Defendant did not raise any objection
to this sentence. Defendant timely appealed and did not request a certificate of probable
cause. Appellate briefing in this matter was completed on August 15, 2023.
                                        DISCUSSION
       Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 567 altered the methodology for selecting
an appropriate triad term. (§ 1170, subd. (b); Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3.) Pursuant to
Senate Bill 567, when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute
specifies three possible terms, the trial court must impose a term not exceeding the
middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a
term exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those aggravating circumstances
(1) have been stipulated to by the defendant; (2) have been found true beyond a
reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial; or (3) relate to the
defendant’s prior convictions and are based on a certified record of conviction. (§ 1170,
subd. (b)(1)-(3); Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3.)

                                                  2
       Defendant argues we must remand this case for resentencing in light of the trial
court’s noncompliance with these legislative changes, citing People v. Mitchell (2022)
83 Cal.App.5th 1051, review granted December 14, 2022, S277314, and People v. Todd
(2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 373, review granted April 26, 2023, S279154. We do not agree.
Here, the trial court selected an upper term sentence over a year after Senate Bill 567’s
effective date (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, eff. Jan. 1, 2022), and defendant did not object to the
court’s alleged noncompliance with the changes brought about by that legislation.
Therefore, defendant forfeited this argument. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351;
People v. Flowers (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 680, 683-684, review granted Oct. 12, 2022,
S276237.) In light of this conclusion, we do not reach the People’s argument that
defendant’s challenge is prohibited by his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause.
                                       DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                       /s/
                                                  Krause, J.

We concur:

     /s/
Robie, Acting P. J.

     /s/
Boulware Eurie, J.

                                              3