People v. Watkins CA5

Filed 5/22/25 P. v. Watkins CA5 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F080436 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F14909870) v.

CHRISTOPHER WATKINS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M. Skiles, Judge. Spolin Law, Aaron Spolin; James S. Thomson, Ethan H. Stone, Laura A. Douglas; Law Office of Jennifer M. Sheetz, Jennifer M. Sheetz; Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, Kimberley A. Donohue, Dina Petrushenko, Stephanie A. Mitchell, and Brook A. Bennigson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION This matter is before us on transfer from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch) and People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 (Salazar). (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).) In accordance with the Supreme Court’s order, we have vacated our earlier decision, and the parties have submitted supplemental briefing. In our prior opinion, we concluded the trial court’s noncompliance with Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3) (Senate Bill No. 567), which was enacted while the appeal was pending, was harmless. (People v. Watkins (Nov. 4, 2022, F080436) [nonpub. opn.].) Although appellant Christopher Watkins was not afforded a jury trial on aggravating circumstances, we reasoned he did not suffer prejudice because the evidence overwhelmingly established that he “took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(11)), the lone aggravating circumstance the trial court relied upon to impose the upper term. Following consideration of Lynch, Salazar, and the parties’ supplemental briefs, we have concluded Watkins nonetheless is entitled to a remand and resentencing, because the record does not “clearly indicate” the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it been aware of Senate Bill No. 567’s presumption against the upper term. (Lynch, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 777.) Accordingly, we vacate Watkins’s sentence and remand the matter for resentencing. In all other respects, we affirm. BACKGROUND In 2019, a jury convicted Watkins of rape by force (Pen. Code,1 § 261, subd. (a)(2); count 1), criminal threats (§ 422; count 2), and dissuading a witness by force or threats (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1); count 3). We need not discuss the facts underlying these