People v. Harris CA3

Filed 11/14/25 P. v. Harris CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

C100949 THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. Nos. 23FE012757, Plaintiff and Respondent, 20FE013314)

v.

MICHAEL PATRICK HARRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Michael Patrick Harris pled no contest to driving under the influence and admitted a great bodily injury enhancement allegation. Over the People’s objection, the trial court placed him on five years of probation and imposed but stayed a three-year sentence on the enhancement. Nearly three years later, defendant was again convicted of driving under the influence. The court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to five years in prison. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred in sentencing him to five years in prison, and alternatively asserts the court was unaware of its discretion to strike the enhancement in the earlier case. The People concede the trial court did not appreciate its

1

discretion but argue it did not err because the original sentencing court would not have struck the enhancement. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing but otherwise affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2020 Case In 2020, defendant was driving a van and made a left-hand turn over a concrete curb, hitting another car head-on and severely injuring the other driver. Defendant appeared to be intoxicated at the scene of the collision and a blood test later confirmed he was under the influence of flualprazolam and cannabis at the time of the collision. The People filed a complaint charging defendant with driving under the influence and causing bodily injury to another person (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f)) (2020 case). The complaint further alleged defendant inflicted great bodily harm on the victim. (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).)1 The trial court extended a plea offer to defendant over the prosecution’s objection. The court’s offer required defendant to plead to the underlying charge and the enhancement alleged in the complaint. In exchange, defendant would be placed on formal probation for five years, “serve one year in the county jail, and the [c]ourt would stay the imposition of sentence on the great bodily injury.” The court told defendant that if he violated his probation it would impose the sentence and he would go to prison for an additional three years. The court further advised defendant that he could also be sentenced on the underlying offense for a total term of up to six years in prison. Defendant pled no contest to driving under the influence and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement. The trial court pronounced the following sentence: “It is the judgment and sentence of this [c]ourt that for violation of Vehicle Code Section 23153[, subdivision ](f), the defendant will serve 364 days in the county jail. [¶] . . . [¶] He will