People v. Heflen CA3

Filed 11/12/21 P. v. Heflen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C091554

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CF04207)

BO JAMES HEFLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Bo James Heflen appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for two sex offenses committed against a minor. The trial court denied

1

probation and sentenced defendant to an aggregate seven-year term, consisting of the middle term on one count and a consecutive one-year term on the other. Defendant contends the matter must be remanded for resentencing because the trial court neglected its statutory duty to consider his combat-related mental health disorders as mitigating factors under Penal Code sections 1170.9,1 as to granting probation, and 1170.91, as to the determinate sentencing. With regard to section 1170.9, we conclude defendant did not allege a causal connection between his commission of the crimes and his combat-related mental health disorders, and thus the trial court’s statutory obligation was not triggered. However, as to section 1170.91, we agree with defendant that the trial court had an independent obligation to consider his combat related mental health disorders as a mitigating factor in sentencing him. Accordingly, we will remand the matter for a new sentencing hearing and otherwise affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are not relevant to the claim on appeal and are not recounted here. It suffices to say defendant repeatedly sexually molested a young family member. An information charged defendant with 12 sexual offenses. Defendant pleaded no contest to committing a lewd act upon a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a)) and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5, subd. (d)). Although he pleaded no contest, defendant continued to maintain his innocence throughout the proceedings. The trial court referred defendant for a psychological evaluation with Dr. Kevin Dugan to determine if defendant would benefit from sex offender therapy and if probation would pose a threat to the victim. (§§ 288.1, 1203.67) Dr. Dugan reported that