People v. Saechao CA3

Filed 5/2/25 P. v. Saechao CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101212

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24CF00013)

v.

ROBERT JOHN SAECHAO,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Robert John Saechao guilty of several counts related to acts of domestic violence against his girlfriend. The trial court found true defendant suffered a prior strike for battery involving serious injury. On appeal, defendant argues insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding and requests that we strike the prior strike. The People concede there was insufficient evidence to find a prior strike but argue we should remand the matter for a retrial on the prior strike allegation. We will reverse the trial court’s true finding as to the prior conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand the matter for further proceedings.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The substantive facts underlying defendant’s convictions are not relevant to our disposition and are therefore not recounted here. An amended information charged defendant with several counts related to acts of domestic violence against his girlfriend, including: one count of willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code); one count of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)); two counts of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)); one count of false imprisonment by violence (§ 236); and one count of making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)). As to all counts, the information also alleged a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and prior serious felony conviction enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) for battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) in 2007. The information further alleged five aggravating factors. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(6), (a)(11).) Defendant waived his right to a jury trial as to the prior strike, prior serious felony conviction enhancement, and aggravating factors. A jury found defendant guilty as to all counts. During bifurcated proceedings as to the alleged enhancements and aggravating factors, the People submitted a certified record of conviction comprised of two documents that collectively indicated defendant “ha[d] been convicted of: Ct 1: 243(d) PC, a felony” and was thus subject to specific terms and conditions of formal probation but they did not provide any facts or circumstances of the underlying conviction. The trial court found true that defendant suffered a prior strike and prior serious felony conviction. Then, the court found true four of the five aggravating factors alleged. Before sentencing, defendant filed a motion to strike his prior conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, arguing that his prior strike was remote in time. The People opposed the Romero motion, arguing that defendant’s