People v. Benavidez CA3

Filed 11/10/22 P. v. Benavidez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C095890

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CF02505)

v.

JAIME ENRIQUE BENAVIDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

In December 2021, defendant Jaime Enrique Benavidez pled no contest to driving under the influence resulting in injury and admitted he personally caused great bodily injury as a result of his criminal conduct. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years in state prison, including the middle term of two years for his driving under the influence conviction. Defendant appeals. On appeal, defendant contends Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) required the trial court to impose

1

the low term on his driving under the influence conviction.1 We disagree and affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND In June 2021, the People charged defendant with hit-and-run driving resulting in injury to another person (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(2)—count 1), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a)—count 2), driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)—count 3), and driving with .08 percent blood alcohol content or more causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)—count 4). Relative to counts 3 and 4, the People also alleged defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in violation of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). Defendant subsequently pled no contest to driving under the influence and causing injury (count 3) and admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury as a result of his criminal conduct. In exchange for his plea, the remaining charges and enhancement allegations were dismissed with a Harvey2 waiver. At sentencing, defense counsel asked the court “to consider the changes in [section] 1170 of the Penal Code. [Defendant]’s under 26 and he’s suffered psychologically and childhood trauma. There is no doubt.” After hearing from counsel, the court ruled: “I have reviewed California Rules of Court[, rules] 4.421 and 4.423[,] and I do not find that aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. I do recognize that there are two separate prongs of [section] 1170[, subdivision] (b)(6) that appear to be present. That is that the Defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to abuse, neglect, exploitation or sexual violence. Also, that the Defendant is a youth or was a youth as defined under [section] 1016.7[, subdivision ](b) at the time of