People v. Taylor CA3

Filed 1/8/26 P. v. Taylor CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C099805

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE009695)

v.

MARCUS LUTHER TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Marcus Luther Taylor contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it sentenced him to an upper term sentence without affording him a jury trial on aggravating factors. We agree and will remand this matter for resentencing.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Early on June 12, 2022, California Highway Patrol officers observed defendant driving a car with its taillights off. Defendant made an unlawful U-turn and nearly hit a car, forcing the car’s driver to swerve onto the sidewalk. The officers stopped defendant who admitted to drinking.

1

A Sacramento police officer assumed the investigation and administered field- sobriety tests. The tests confirmed defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Two preliminary alcohol screening tests recorded defendant’s blood-alcohol level at 0.21 percent and 0.198 percent. Arrested and transported to the county jail, defendant submitted to a blood chemical test. A forensic analysis of the sample revealed that defendant’s blood-alcohol level was 0.218 percent. A county criminalist testified that, based on principles of back extrapolation, defendant’s blood-alcohol concentration may have been as high as 0.26 percent when he made the unlawful U-turn. On the first day of trial, defendant pleaded no contest to driving with a suspended or revoked driver’s license, a misdemeanor (count three), and driving a vehicle not equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device, also a misdemeanor (count four). (Veh. Code, §§ 14601.2, subd. (a); 23247, subd. (e).) A jury subsequently found defendant guilty of felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (count one) and felony driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more (count two). (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a), (b).) Defendant admitted a prior strike conviction for first degree burglary, and through his counsel he stipulated he had two prior DUI convictions for offenses committed in 2012. (Pen. Code, §§ 459; 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a).) Additionally, following a bench trial, the trial court found that defendant had another prior DUI conviction in 2019 where he caused great bodily injury. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b).) The trial court also found true a number of aggravating circumstances. Each factor was pleaded in the information. The court found true that defendant’s convictions as an adult “are numerous and of increasing seriousness”; he served a prior prison term, he was on post release community supervision at the time of the offense; and his prior