People v. McDonald CA3

Filed 8/22/22 P. v. McDonald CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094485

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19CR001960)

v.

QUINTON TRAVIS MCDONALD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Quinton Travis McDonald agreed to a stipulated upper term of three years, which was suspended while he was placed on probation, in a plea agreement. After defendant violated his probation terms, consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court executed defendant’s three-year sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing the changes made to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022

1

Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731) (Senate Bill 567) do not permit an upper term sentence under the circumstances of the case.1 We will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The prosecution charged defendant with severing a phone line (§ 591), misdemeanor spousal battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)), and two misdemeanor counts of endangering a child (§ 273a, subd. (b)). In August 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to the severing a phone line count and the prosecution dismissed the other counts.2 The trial court imposed the stipulated upper term of three years, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed defendant on a five-year probation term. In June 2021, defendant admitted a probation violation and the prosecution dismissed a separate case in which defendant had been charged with forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)). The trial court lifted the suspension on the three-year prison sentence and permitted the last two months of the sentence to be served on mandatory supervision. Defendant filed a notice of appeal without a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Defendant argues he is entitled to resentencing because of the changes made to section 1170, subdivision (b) by Senate Bill 567. According to defendant, the changes limit the trial court’s ability to impose more than the middle term unless a defendant stipulates to the aggravating circumstances, those circumstances have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt, or the court is relying on prior convictions based on a certified record of conviction. Because none of these circumstances are met here, defendant reasons he is entitled to resentencing under the amended statute.