People v. Wilson CA6

Filed 6/22/21 P. v. Wilson CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H046730 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1648876)

v.

EXRILL DARILE WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a negotiated disposition, defendant Exrill Darile Wilson pleaded no contest to several counts of burglary of a vehicle and was sentenced to two years in state prison. At sentencing, the trial court also ordered, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13350, that Wilson’s convictions be reported to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for revocation of his driving privilege. On appeal, Wilson argues the trial court erred in directing that his convictions be reported to the DMV because there was no factual basis for that order. On our own motion, we ordered the record augmented to include the transcripts from the preliminary hearing. We also requested supplemental briefing from the parties, once those transcripts were filed, to address the following question: “May the sentencing judge, who also presided over the preliminary hearing in this case, rely on the testimony and other evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to inform her sentencing choices, including the decision to notify the California Department of Motor Vehicles of defendant’s convictions pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13350?”

In his supplemental brief, Wilson argued that revoking a driver’s license is a punishment and, under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 (Apprendi), a punishment may only be imposed if the facts supporting it were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In his view, testimony from the preliminary hearing, at which the magistrate need only find that probable cause exists to hold a defendant to answer, is insufficient to support this aspect of his sentence. We disagree and will affirm the judgment. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background On May 24, 2018, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a third amended information charging Wilson with participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a); count 1)1 and three counts of burglary of a vehicle (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b); counts 2-4). The information further alleged that the burglaries were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) and that Wilson had a prison prior conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Wilson pleaded no contest to counts 2, 3, and 4 in exchange for an indicated sentence of 24 months plus dismissal of count 1 and the gang enhancements. At the December 21, 2018 sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of 24 months in prison, deemed served with his 732 days of credits (366 days of custody credits plus 366 days of conduct credits pursuant to section 4019). The trial court also imposed various fines, fees, and assessments, none of which are at issue in this appeal. Finally, the trial court, over defense objection, stated that it would report Wilson’s convictions to the DMV for revocation of his driving privilege pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13350. Wilson timely appealed.