People v. Gregg CA4/3

Filed 12/19/25 P. v. Gregg CA4/3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060803

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21CF0388)

JONATHAN LEE GREGG, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury found Jonathan Lee Gregg guilty of attempted murder and assault of a minor under the age of 18 with intent to commit a sexual offense. On appeal, Gregg seeks resentencing given an amendment to Penal Code section 1170 (all undesignated statutory references are to this code). He also argues the trial court abused its discretion by declining to strike two passages from the probation report. In our prior opinion in this matter, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. (People v. Gregg (May 24, 2023, G060803) [nonpub. opn.].) Gregg petitioned for review. The California Supreme Court granted the petition and deferred the matter pending the disposition of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch). After its decision in Lynch, the Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Lynch. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions, we vacated our prior decision. Both parties thereafter filed supplemental briefing. In light of Lynch, we find the trial court committed prejudicial error because it is conceivable a jury would not have reached the same conclusion as the trial court on one of the aggravating factors: whether Gregg “engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1).) We vacate Gregg’s sentence and remand the matter for litigation of the alleged aggravating circumstances and full resentencing. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. FACTS