People v. Crisp CA4/1

Filed 8/6/21 P. v. Crisp CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D077382

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE387461)

JASON BRIAN CRISP,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions. Elisabeth Ritter Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jason Brian Crisp was sentenced to prison after the trial court found he had violated probation. Crisp contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that he violated his probation by being

in possession of a firearm and ammunition (Pen. Code,1 §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 30305, subd. (a)(l)); (2) the court applied the wrong legal standard in revoking his probation; and (3) his sentence on a prison prior enhancement should be stricken under Senate Bill No. 136. Consistent with the principles enunciated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, we conclude Crisp is entitled to the benefit of the changes to the criminal law that were enacted after his probation was originally imposed but before the finality of the revocation proceedings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified and remand with directions set forth below. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2019, a jury convicted Crisp of resisting an officer. (§ 148, subd. (a).) He pleaded guilty to a robbery count (§ 211), and admitted suffering a prison prior within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). In July 2019, the court sentenced him to six years in state prison as follows: the upper term of five years on the robbery conviction, plus one year on the section 667.5 enhancement. It suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on three years’ probation. In December 2019, at a joint preliminary hearing and probation