People v. Carlin CA3

Filed 5/2/25 P. v. Carlin CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094284

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CF03174)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER PAUL DAVID CARLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Paul David Carlin pled no contest to first degree burglary and the trial court sentenced him to the upper term. On appeal, Carlin argued Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731) applied retroactively to his case, and because the trial court imposed the upper term on his lone offense, our court should modify his sentence to impose the middle term. The People did not address whether our court could modify Carlin’s sentence but conceded Senate Bill 567 applied to Carlin and that remand was appropriate. We rejected the People’s concession and

1

concluded the trial court’s error was harmless under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. Carlin sought review in the California Supreme Court, which ordered this court to vacate the previous opinion and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch) and Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821 (Erlinger). By separate order, we vacated our decision. Having done so, we now conclude that remand for a resentencing hearing is required. BACKGROUND As the facts of Carlin’s conviction do not bear on our decision, they are not recounted here in any detail. Suffice it to say, in 2020, Carlin entered the victim’s garage and stole fishing reels from within it. Carlin pled no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 495)1 in exchange for the dismissal of an additional case. Carlin’s probation report recounted a lengthy criminal history dating back to 1988, which included multiple convictions for theft, forgery, fraud, and drug-related offenses. Carlin committed several of his four felonies and 11 prior misdemeanors while in custody, or while on parole, probation, or supervision. In imposing a sentence, the trial court considered the probation report. As circumstances in aggravation, the court found Carlin had four prior felony convictions and 11 prior misdemeanors, Carlin’s prior performance under supervision had been unsatisfactory, and Carlin had served a prior prison term. The trial court found no circumstances in mitigation. Carlin represented himself at sentencing and did not object to the trial court’s identification of aggravating circumstances. The trial court imposed the six-year upper term. After transfer from our Supreme Court, the parties filed supplemental briefing.