People v. Patterson CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Oct 8, 2024 No. B326755Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing the defendant to an upper term after striking one enhancement, as the court properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and any potential error regarding jury findings on aggravating factors was harmless.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term for robbery during resentencing.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to impose the low term despite evidence of childhood trauma.
Whether the trial court's reliance on aggravating factors not found by a jury was harmless error under People v. Lynch.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Assuming for purposes of analysis the trial court erred in finding some or all of the aggravating factors here, we apply the Chapman standard to conclude any error was harmless.”

“Beyond a reasonable doubt, a jury would have found true the three aggravating factors here. Thus, any error by the trial court in making these findings was harmless.”

“Choosing the upper term was not an abuse of discretion.”

Filed 10/8/24 P. v. Patterson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B326755

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA434945 v.

RONALD PATTERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deborah S. Brazil, Judge. Affirmed. Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Several years into Ronald Patterson’s 20-year prison term, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation asked the trial court to resentence him. The court struck one five-year enhancement, reducing Patterson’s sentence to 15 years. We affirm. Statutory citations are to the Penal Code. I A November 2015 information charged Patterson with one count of robbery and one count of assault with a deadly weapon for a single incident from March 2015. The information alleged Patterson had been convicted of prior serious or violent felonies, including three robberies from 2006 and a carjacking from 1995. The information later listed other convictions and asserted Patterson had served several prior prison terms. In February 2016, Patterson reached a plea agreement with the prosecution and agreed to a 20-year sentence. He pleaded guilty to the robbery count, admitted one prior strike under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12), and further admitted two prior serious felony convictions under section 667, subdivision (a). In line with the plea agreement, the court sentenced Patterson to 20 years in prison—the upper term of five years for the robbery count, doubled due to the strike, plus two five-year enhancements for the prior serious felony convictions Patterson admitted. In September 2021, the Secretary of the Department wrote the trial court requesting resentencing under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), which now is section 1172.1. (See People v. Anderson (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 233, 237, fn. 3, review granted April 19, 2023, S278786.) The letter said Patterson had been sentenced before recent sentencing changes gave courts discretion to strike prior serious felony convictions and the

People v. Patterson CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B326755

RONALD PATTERSON,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief