People v. Valencia CA3

Filed 4/29/25 P. v. Valencia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098493

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR2003-2642)

v.

JON VALENCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jon Matthew Valencia pleaded no contest to attempted murder. In 2004, he stipulated to a sentence that included the upper term for his attempted murder conviction in addition to a variety of sentence enhancements. In 2022, the trial court recalled Valencia’s sentence under Penal Code section 1172.75, struck a prior prison term enhancement, and otherwise reimposed the prior upper term sentence and other

1

enhancements.1 On appeal, Valencia contends that the trial court could not impose the upper term sentence because the aggravating circumstances of the crime were not stipulated to, found true beyond a reasonable doubt, or based on a certified record of conviction, as required under sections 1170 and 1172.75, subdivision (d)(2). The People argue that section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) permitted the trial court to reimpose the upper term sentence. We agree with the People and will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In 2003, Valencia attacked the mother of his children with a knife and a hammer after she obtained a restraining order against him. In 2004, Valencia entered into a plea agreement under which he would plead no contest to attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and receive an upper term sentence of nine years. He also agreed to admit a deadly weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), an enhancement for great bodily injury involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1)), a prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), for an aggregate sentence of 30 years. At the 2004 sentencing hearing, the parties discussed the agreement: “[Prosecutor]: Just one other issue given the Blakely [v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296] case. This is a stipulated sentence, and it should be clear, as well as waiving his right to a jury trial, he’s waiving his right to a jury trial on sentencing. “[Defense counsel]: Yes, he is. This is a stipulated sentence, and we have stipulated to the aggravated term in that position, I don’t think Blakely even applies. “THE COURT: Yeah, I would agree with that. “[Defense counsel]: And in the event it does, Mr. Valencia is amenable to waiving his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors and amenable to the Court