People v. Eastus CA3

Filed 2/25/26 P. v. Eastus CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C102974

v. (Super. Ct. No. 24CR0731)

DUSTIN IRA EASTUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In September 2023, defendant Dustin Ira Eastus robbed a 14-year-old at gunpoint, taking the teenager’s bicycle worth approximately $1,000. A jury convicted defendant of second degree robbery (Pen Code, § 211) and found true an aggravating circumstance that he used a weapon (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(2)).1 Following defendant’s agreement to a court trial on certain bifurcated matters, the trial court found true allegations that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and it also found true four additional aggravating circumstances: that defendant’s prior convictions were numerous and

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code, and undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

1

increasing in seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2)), defendant served two prior prison terms (rule 4.421(b)(3)), the offense was committed when defendant was on probation or parole (rule 4.421(b)(4)), and defendant’s performance on probation or parole was poor (rule 4.421(b)(5)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate 15 years in prison, consisting of 10 years for the robbery (the upper term of five years doubled for the prior strike) and a consecutive five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. Defendant did not ask the trial court to consider striking the prior serious felony enhancement. Defendant now contends the trial court abused its discretion in (1) sentencing him to the upper term, and (2) failing to strike the prior serious felony enhancement. Finding no abuse of discretion, and finding that defendant’s challenge to the enhancement is forfeited, we will affirm the judgment. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND The probation report indicated that defendant had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, depression, Tourette’s syndrome, and anxiety; that he began smoking marijuana with his mother during his youth; and that he used marijuana and methamphetamine daily. Records indicated defendant had experienced childhood abuse and neglect. According to the probation report, defendant committed numerous juvenile offenses and was adjudged a ward of the court in 2007. His wardship ended two days after his 18th birthday, and defendant entered the adult criminal justice system approximately six months later. A static risk assessment placed him at a high risk to reoffend. Defendant was concerned about what would happen to his brother if his mother passed away while defendant was incarcerated. The probation report listed the circumstances in aggravation found true by the jury and the trial court. As circumstances in mitigation, the probation report identified the following: that defendant said he had believed the bicycle was his (rule 4.423(a)(7)); that