People v. Hendrix CA3

Filed 3/21/25 P. v. Hendrix CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100116

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CR20153634 & CR20161094) v.

STEVEN HENDRIX,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court resentenced defendant Steven Hendrix pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75,1 reducing his prison sentence by five years. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by imposing an upper term sentence for his gross vehicular manslaughter conviction. The People contend the trial court complied with section 1172.75 in imposing the upper term sentence. We do not resolve this dispute because defendant failed to object to the upper term sentence and has therefore forfeited the issue.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

We agree with the parties that we must nevertheless remand the case for the trial court to update the credit defendant has earned for time served in custody and to include his updated credit totals on the abstract of judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2016, in Yolo County case No. CR2015-3634, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon his fiancée. The court then found true allegations that defendant had been convicted of the same offense within the prior seven years; had been convicted of a serious felony, as defined in section 667, subdivision (c); and had served a prior prison term. In 2017, in Yolo County case No. CR2016-1094, a jury found defendant guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, causing bodily injury while driving under the influence of drugs, and four counts of endangering the health of a child in his care. The jury also found true allegations that defendant proximately caused injury to seven victims while driving under the influence of drugs. In a bifurcated trial, the jury also found true allegations that defendant had been convicted of a serious felony, as defined in section 667, subdivisions (a) and (c); had served a prior prison term; and was out of custody on bail when he committed the offenses. The trial court sentenced defendant to 42 years four months in prison for both cases, including a one-year enhancement for having served a prior prison term, pursuant to former section 667.5, subdivision (b). (See Stats. 2018, ch. 423, § 65.) The court struck the remaining prior prison term enhancement allegation. In 2022, after the Legislature repealed most prior prison term enhancements and created a process for resentencing prisoners whose sentences included repealed enhancements (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1; Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3), the trial court set a resentencing hearing pursuant to what is now section 1172.75 (see Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12 [renumbering section 1171.1 without substantive change]).