People v. Proctor CA3

Filed 9/3/25 P. v. Proctor CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101383

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR20232880)

v.

JAYSON DEWAYNE PROCTOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jayson Dewayne Proctor appeals from a judgment in which the trial court imposed the middle term of imprisonment. He argues the court abused its discretion by failing to apply the lower term presumption under Penal Code 1 section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). Finding no merit to this contention, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND In September 2023, defendant reached out to an account on Grindr, a grid-based location application used “for hookups.” The account was operated by a 31-year-old person who catches online predators for a living. In his messages to defendant, that person

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

pretended to be 15 years old. Defendant expressed interest in having oral and penetrative sex with the “15-year-old” and offered to teach him “everything about sex.” After days of messaging, defendant arranged to meet him at a restaurant. When the person operating the decoy account saw defendant arrive, he called the police. A jury found defendant guilty of communicating with or attempting to communicate with a minor with the intent to commit a sexual offense (§ 288.3, subd. (a)) and arranging a meeting with a minor for lewd purposes (§ 288.4, subd. (b)). Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances. The trial court found true that defendant’s prior convictions were numerous or of increasing seriousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)), that defendant served a prior prison term (id., rule 4.421(b)(3)), and that defendant’s prior performance on parole or probation was unsatisfactory (id., rule 4.421(b)(5)). Prior to sentencing, defendant submitted a letter detailing his abusive childhood, which included sexual abuse. In his sentencing brief, defendant argued the trial court should impose the lower term under section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) because his experience of childhood sexual trauma and physical abuse were contributing factors in his commission of the offenses. At sentencing, the trial court indicated it had “read [defense counsel’s] initial defense brief, as well as the mitigating information related to Mr. Proctor that was submitted earlier this year.” The court found the presumption of ineligibility for probation was not overcome and sentenced defendant to: (1) the middle term of three years for the section 288.4, subdivision (b) conviction; and (2) the middle term of one year (due to it being an attempt) for the section 288.3, subdivision (a) conviction, stayed pursuant to section 654. In explaining its reasons to defendant for denying probation, the court acknowledged “the facts of your very difficult upbringing, which I have no doubt all of that occurred in an absolutely horrible situation that you grew up in and I’m sure affected—I’m not sure, I’m pretty much certain it’s affected your adult life. And there’s some tragedy that has been brought upon