People v. Minick CA3

Filed 5/30/25 P. v. Minick CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095111

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF202485)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

TRAVIS RAY MINICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Travis Ray Minick pleaded no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted a prior strike conviction for burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.)1 The plea agreement called for defendant to complete a residential treatment program, after which the trial court would strike the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

strike and grant probation. Defendant failed to complete the program. The trial court imposed the upper term, doubled by the strike. Defendant appealed contending that Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 567) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which took effect while his appeal was pending, applies retroactively to his case and requires reversal of his sentence and remand for resentencing. The People agreed that Senate Bill No. 567 applied, but argued the trial court sufficiently complied with the new law in selecting an upper-term sentence, and any error was harmless. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed, concluding that the trial court complied with amended section 1170, subdivision (b), regarding one aggravating circumstance the court relied on in sentencing defendant to the upper term, and the court’s consideration of additional aggravating circumstances inconsistent with the new statutory standard was harmless error. (People v. Minick (Aug. 23, 2022, C095111) [nonpub. opn.] (Minick).) Defendant sought review in the California Supreme Court, which ordered this court to vacate our previous opinion and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch). Having done so, we agree with the parties’ current positions that remand for another resentencing hearing is required.2 BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378—count 1) and one count of receiving a stolen vehicle. (§ 496, subd. (a)—count 2.) As to the drug possession count, the information