Court Opinion

ID: 9881745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 20:18:10.20035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:23.414378
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/3/23 P. v. Cayton 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                        G061645

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 17NF1570)

 JOSEPH RAYA CAYTON,                                                   OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T.
Pham, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
                   Michael Allen, 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, Heather B. Arambarri and
Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                             *               *               *
                   A jury convicted Joseph Raya Cayton of sexual penetration of an
incompetent victim (count 1) and sexual battery on an institutionalized victim (count 2).
The trial court sentenced him to six years in state prison on count 1, which provided for
the longer potential term, and stayed sentence on count 2 pursuant to Penal Code section
654.1 Cayton’s sole contention on appeal is that his case must be remanded for
resentencing because the court failed to exercise its discretion under the newly amended
version of section 654.2 We agree remand is appropriate but for a different reason: The
court failed to impose sentence on count 2—resulting in an unauthorized absence of
sentence that must be corrected. On remand, the trial court must impose a sentence on
count 2 and then decide which count to stay execution of sentence. In all other respects,
the judgment is affirmed.
                                          FACTS
              The victim, an adult woman, was born with Down syndrome and “severely
disabled.” She was living at a residential care facility for people with developmental
disabilities. One morning, an employee of the facility found blood smeared in the
victim’s diaper, near “her private parts.” A sexual-assault exam of the victim revealed
the presence of semen in her vulva. A DNA test of the semen matched a DNA sample
taken from Cayton, who had been working at the facility the night before the victim was
found with blood in her diaper.
              A jury found Cayton guilty of sexual penetration of an incompetent victim
(§ 289, subd. (b); count 1) and sexual battery on an institutionalized victim (§ 243.4,
subd. (b); count 2). In July 2022, without objection, the trial court sentenced Cayton on
count 1 to the midterm of six years in state prison. The court explained, “Count 1 was
selected as the principal term because it provides for the longest potential term of

1             All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2             Under the new amendment, in effect when Cayton was sentenced, trial
courts are no longer required to impose sentence on the count that provides for the
longest sentence. (People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379.) According to
Cayton, the trial court mistakenly believed it had to sentence him on count 1 because it
provided for the longer potential sentence.

                                             2
imprisonment.” On count 2, the court ruled “the sentence is stayed pursuant to [ ] section
654 because this count is based on the same conduct and Mr. Cayton cannot be punished
under more than one provision.” Cayton timely appealed.
              This court requested, and the parties submitted, supplemental briefs
addressing whether the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it stayed
sentence on count 2 without imposing a term and whether this court should remand for
resentencing for that reason.
                                      DISCUSSION
              The parties agree the trial court erred in failing to impose sentence on
count 2. Upon conviction “‘the court must either sentence the defendant or grant
probation in a lawful manner; it has no other discretion.’” (People v. Alford (2010) 180
Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468.) Where, as here, probation was denied, the court “must impose
sentence on every count but stay execution as necessary to implement section 654.” (Id.
at p. 1472, italics added.) Failure to do so “results in an unauthorized absence of
sentence” (id. at p. 1473), which we can correct “at any time” (People v. Sanders (2012)
55 Cal.4th 731, 743, fn. 13). To correct this error, we may either remand for a new
sentencing hearing or modify the judgment. (Alford at p. 1473.)

              We will remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing to allow the
court to impose sentence on count 2. The court may also revisit the sentence on count 1
(see People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [resentencing court may modify every
aspect of sentence under “full resentencing” rule]), except that Cayton may not be
sentenced to a term greater than his original sentence (People v. Burns (1984) 158
Cal.App.3d 1178, 1184). The court must then exercise its discretion to stay execution of
sentence on either count 1 or count 2, pursuant to section 654.
              Instead of remand, the Attorney General proposes we modify the judgment
by imposing the midterm sentence of three years on count 2. (See § 243.4, subd. (b)

                                             3
[imprisonment of two, three, or four years].) Out of an abundance of caution, we decline
to do so.
                                       DISPOSITION
               The sentence is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for
resentencing with directions to impose a sentence on count 2 and then stay execution of
sentence on either count 1 or 2, pursuant to section 654. Following resentencing, the trial
court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy
to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment
is affirmed.

                                                  DELANEY, J.

WE CONCUR:

GOETHALS, ACTING P. J.

MOTOIKE, J.

                                              4