People v. Guevara CA3

Filed 8/1/25 P. v. Guevara CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100052 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CR- v. 900006)

MICHAEL JUNIOR GUEVARA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Michael Junior Guevara guilty of stalking in violation of a court order, and the trial court imposed the upper term sentence of four years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends the court violated his right to a jury trial by selecting the upper term based on aggravating factors that were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. The People agree. We agree with the parties and will vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

A jury found defendant guilty of stalking when a court order prohibited the behavior, knowing and intentional violation of a protective order, and vandalism. At the sentencing hearing, defendant requested probation or, alternatively, a lower term sentence. Defendant argued that the court could not impose the upper term sentence because no aggravating circumstances had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. The People submitted certified copies showing defendant’s prior convictions and argued the court could impose the upper term sentence based on defendant’s criminal history and “the facts that the [c]ourt heard at trial.” The trial court noted that defendant had previously been convicted of three felonies and “multiple misdemeanors.” The court found these convictions numerous and of increasing seriousness. Based on defendant’s record, the trial court imposed the upper term sentence of four years in prison. Defendant timely appealed from the judgment. DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court violated his right to a jury trial by imposing the upper term based on aggravating facts that were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. The People agree, as do we. “Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, ‘any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence.’ ” (People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078.) Penal Code “[s]ection 1170(b)(2) similarly provides that the trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation of the crime justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and ‘the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt’ at a jury or court