People v. Rivera CA3

Filed 7/28/25 P. v. Rivera CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101230

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23FE015929)

v.

HUGO LEONEL RIVERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Hugo Leonel Rivera guilty of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)—count two)1 and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)—count three).2 In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had suffered a prior strike. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The jury found not true the aggravating fact that the vandalism involved damage of great monetary value. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(9).) The jury could not reach a

1

The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison for count two (an upper term of three years doubled for his prior strike conviction), and a consecutive term of 120 days in county jail for count three. The trial court imposed the upper term on count two based on the fact that defendant had served a prior prison term. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court prejudicially erred when it imposed an upper term based on an aggravating fact that was not found true by a jury. The People concede the error but argue it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, defendant argues, and the People concede, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect 120 days of additional custody credits awarded by the court at sentencing. We will order the abstract of judgment and minute order corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment with respect to count three and custody credits. The judgment is affirmed. I. DISCUSSION A. Prior Prison Term Finding The trial court imposed the upper term on count two based on the aggravating fact that defendant had served a prior prison term. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3).) The court made the prior prison term finding itself based on the certified record of defendant’s prior strike conviction. Our Supreme Court recently held that “a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.”3 (People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086, fn. omitted (Wiley).)