P.v. Dahlem CA3

Filed 5/13/22 P.v. Dahlem CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094655

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19F1929)

v.

JACOB MICHAEL DAHLEM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jacob Michael Dahlem appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his request for probation and sentencing him to an aggregate prison term of six years. He asserts and the People agree that: (1) the trial court erred in determining he was presumptively ineligible for probation; and (2) he is entitled to remand for a full resentencing in light of recent amendments to Penal Code1 section 1170. For the reasons explained herein, we concur that defendant is entitled to remand for a new probation

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

determination and full resentencing under amended section 1170. Accordingly, we will vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with causing bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol (count 1) and causing injury while driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more (count 2). It was alleged as enhancements to both counts that defendant caused great bodily injury and bodily injury to more than one victim. Defendant pled no contest to both counts and admitted the associated enhancements. The stipulated factual basis for his plea was the preliminary hearing transcript. This transcript reflected that defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol when he took an off-ramp too fast and collided with a truck, causing the ejection of the driver, who died. Defendant’s passenger was also injured in the crash. Defendant’s preliminary alcohol screening tests from the scene came back at 0.091 and 0.097 percent, while his evidentiary preliminary alcohol screening tests later administered at the patrol office came back at 0.08 and 0.10 percent. Thereafter at the August 17, 2021, sentencing hearing, the court gathered evidence from the parties, noted its review of various materials (including the probation sentencing report), and listened to argument of counsel. The trial court then determined defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation because he had used a deadly weapon and the crime involved great bodily injury given that the victim died. Further, there were no facts justifying a grant of probation under the circumstances. The court then sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of six years comprised of the midterm of two years for count 1, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, plus one year for the multiple victim enhancement, and the upper term of three years stayed under section 654 for count 2. The trial court also imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine, a $40 court