People v. Snyder CA1/1

Filed 7/29/22 P. v. Snyder CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162756 v. RALPH THOMAS SNYDER II, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR953688-A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ralph Thomas Snyder II contends on appeal his sentence must be vacated and his case remanded for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 567’s (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) amendments to Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (b). We agree and remand for resentencing. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with felony unlawful possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a); count 1) and felony unlawful possession of ammunition (id., § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The complaint referenced a felony conviction from 1993 in support of those counts. Defendant pled no contest as to count 1 and admitted his prior as to that count. The court suspended imposition of defendant’s sentence and placed him on three years’ probation. However, the court subsequently revoked

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

defendant’s probation due to a probation violation. The court then sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years on count 1. The court identified various circumstances in aggravation, including that “[t]he manner in which the crime was carried out indicated planning and sophistication,” his “prior convictions as an adult are numerous and of increasing seriousness,” he “served two prior prison terms,” he ”was on two grants of summary probation when the crime was committed,” and his performance on probation and parole “were unsatisfactory.” Defendant timely appealed. II. DISCUSSION On appeal, defendant asserts he is entitled to resentencing under section 1170 as amended by Senate Bill 567. He contends he did not stipulate to the facts upon which the trial court relied when imposing his sentence, and they were not found true by a jury. The Attorney General disagrees resentencing is necessary, arguing defendant admitted to a prior felony. The Attorney General further argues any error was harmless.2 At the time of sentencing, section 1170 provided that the sentencing choice between the low, middle, and upper term “shall rest within the sound discretion of the court” based on which term “best serves the interests of justice.” (Former § 1170, subd. (b).) Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 567 modified this provision to require imposition of the middle term of imprisonment unless circumstances in aggravation justify imposition of a greater sentence. (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3.) It also modified section 1170, subdivision (b) to require the circumstances in aggravation be found true beyond a reasonable doubt or be stipulated to by the defendant. (Stats. 2021,