People v. Allen CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 23, 2025 No. G063941Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by imposing an upper term sentence based on aggravating factors that were neither admitted by the defendant nor found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b).

Issues

Whether the trial court violated Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) by relying on aggravating factors not admitted by the defendant or found true by a jury.
Whether the defendant forfeited his right to challenge the sentencing error.
Whether the sentencing error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court erred by imposing an upper term sentence based on factors other than prior convictions or facts stipulated by Allen, i.e., the perceived sophistication and planning that went into the crimes.”

“We also reject the People’s assertion that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Filed 1/23/25 P. v. Allen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063941, G063944

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CF0546, 21CF1768) CHRISTOPHER DAVID ALLEN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Julian W. Bailey, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Brad J. Poore, 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, Collette C. Cavalier, and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

THE COURT:* In this consolidated appeal, defendant Christopher David Allen seeks reversal and resentencing. The People concede error but assert the sentencing hearing error was forfeited or, alternatively, harmless. We reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing. FACTS In 2021, two felony complaints were filed against Allen based on alleged conduct occurring in February 2021 (case No. 21CF0546) and June 2021 (case No. 21CF1768) respectively. In June 2022, Allen pleaded guilty to all charged counts against him. In case No. 21CF0546, Allen pleaded guilty to forgery of a driver’s license (Pen. Code, § 470a),1 identify theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), and check fraud (§ 476). In case No. 21CF1768, Allen pleaded guilty to three counts of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), two counts of acquiring access card information (§ 484e, subd. (d)), possession of a completed check with intent to defraud (§ 475, subd. (c)), receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)). During the plea colloquy, Allen testified he had reviewed the written guilty plea advisement and waiver of rights forms for each case with his attorney, and that he signed and initialed those forms. The handwritten factual basis for the guilty plea in each guilty plea advisement and waiver of rights form was terse. For instance, in case No. 21CF1768, Allen wrote that “on 6-11-21, I obtained the personal ID

People v. Allen CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief