People v. Fields CA5

Filed 12/30/24 P. v. Fields CA5 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083476 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21900886) v.

MAURICE LAFAY FIELDS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Monica R. Diaz, Judge. Allan E. Junker, 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, Michael A. Canzoneri and Clifford E. Zall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.

This matter is before us on transfer from our Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch), which settled a division among courts of appeal on the appropriate standard for assessing prejudice in the context of noncompliance with the requirements of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(1), (2), and (3)1 as modified by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567). In accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court, we have vacated our earlier decision and permitted supplemental briefing from the parties. Defendant Maurice Lafay Fields pled no contest pursuant to a plea agreement to infliction of corporal injury to a cohabitant in exchange for dismissal of other counts and enhancement allegations. He was sentenced to the upper term of four years’ imprisonment, execution of the term was suspended, and the trial court granted defendant a term of probation. Defendant later violated probation and the suspended sentence was executed. In his original briefing in this appeal, he argued he was entitled to resentencing in light of Senate Bill 567’s changes to section 1170, subdivision (b). After the matter was transferred by our Supreme Court, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a letter indicating he did not intend to file a supplemental opening brief. Likewise, the People have not filed a supplemental brief. Nevertheless, we conclude that defendant’s sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing in light of Lynch because an upper term sentence was imposed, at least in part, based on aggravating factors not proved in compliance with section 1170, subdivision (b) and the record contains no clear indication the trial court would have imposed the same sentence if it understood the new scope of its discretion. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for full resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.