People v. Rash CA3

Filed 2/11/26 P. v. Rash CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101759

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CF05782)

v.

RYAN SCOTT RASH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ryan Scott Rash 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. BACKGROUND In November 2022, a City of Chico police officer attempted to pull over Rash for expired vehicle registration. Rash continued driving through stop signs and red lights, in addition to committing other Vehicle Code violations, until he struck a metal pylon or

1

bollard. The vehicle went airborne and eventually slid into the front yard of a nearby home, taking out a fence and uprooting a tree. Rash was charged in case No. 22CF05782 (case No. 782) with felony evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1), and felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594,1 subd. (a); count 2). The information also alleged that Rash had a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12) and was on bail at the time of the current offenses (§ 12022.1). The information did not allege any aggravating factors. The same day, Rash was charged in case No. 22CF05051 (case No. 051) with felony failure to appear while on bail (§ 1320.5; count 1). This information also alleged that Rash had a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12) and was on bail at the time of the current offense (§ 12022.1). After Rash waived his right to a jury trial and the court struck the on-bail enhancement in case No. 782, the trial court found him guilty of both the felony evasion and vandalism counts and found the prior strike allegation to be true. Rash entered a plea of no contest in case No. 051, as well as a misdemeanor violation in a third case, case No. 23CF03169 (case No. 169), for resisting an executive officer while in custody (§ 69, subd. (a)).2 As part of the plea, the prior strike and on-bail enhancement allegations were dismissed in case No. 051. The probation department filed a combined report for all three cases. The report noted, among other things, that Rash had two prior misdemeanor drug cases that had been dismissed with a Harvey3 waiver, both of which occurred when he was on postrelease community supervision (PRCS). The report summarized Rash’s extensive criminal