People v. Walston CA3

Filed 5/6/22 P. v. Walston CA3 Opinion after vacating opinion filed on 11/4/21 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092121

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 19CR001167, 20CR000001) v.

RAYMOND WALSTON III,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Raymond Walston III pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm, willfully driving a vehicle on a highway in the direction opposite to lawful traffic during flight from a pursuing peace officer, and resisting an executive officer. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper terms of imprisonment for willfully driving a vehicle on a highway in the direction opposite to lawful traffic during flight from a pursuing peace officer and for resisting an executive officer. The court further imposed $1,500 in restitution fines, a $120 court operations assessment, a $90 convictions assessment, and a $360 drug program fee. Defendant appeals the imposition of the upper terms of imprisonment and these fines, assessments, and fee.

1

We agree defendant’s case must be remanded for resentencing under newly enacted legislation requiring the trial court to impose a term of imprisonment not exceeding the middle term unless: (1) aggravating circumstances have been established by stipulation or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; or (2) the defendant has a prior convictions as established by certified records. (Pen. Code,1 § 1170, subd. (b), as amended by Sen. Bill No. 567, Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3.) Upon remand, the trial court may consider defendant’s fines and fees anew. (See People v. Ramirez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 55, 64.) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 29, 2019, at 11:15 p.m., a California Highway Patrol Officer saw defendant driving past him going over 100 miles an hour. The officer pursued defendant’s car and attempted to pull him over. Defendant slowed down but did not pull over for another half mile. Once the officer contacted defendant, defendant became “aggressive and hostile” and told the officer “I don’t have to roll down my window, you know who I am just write me the fucking ticket so I can get outta here.” The officer responded that he did not know who defendant was, and defendant repeated, “You know who I am, I’m Raymond, write me the ticket or get the fuck out.” The officer asked defendant to write down his name, and defendant complied. When the officer went back to his patrol car to verify defendant’s identity, defendant sped away. The officer pursued defendant with the patrol car’s lights and siren activated. Defendant drove into a residential neighborhood reaching a speed of 60 miles per hour. Defendant ran through stop signs, stop lights, and drove in both lanes of the road. At some point, defendant stopped his car at a house but refused to get out of the car. Defendant yelled, “Fuck that, I’m not going back to jail, I just want to check on my girl!”