People v. Harmon CA3

Filed 11/29/22 P. v. Harmon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095525

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE012534)

v.

HARLAND HARMON, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Harland Harmon, Jr., guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism upon a vehicle, and resisting an officer. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of three years eight months in state prison, including the midterm of three years for the assault conviction. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court failed to understand its “newfound obligation” to consider the low term as presumptive “when faced with credible evidence of a nexus between a defendant’s psychological trauma and the commission of the charged offenses.” We find the trial court properly exercised its discretion and affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND On August 8, 2020, defendant’s wife, K.H., went to her and defendant’s house to remove her possessions. K.H. had been living at her mother’s house along with her stepson and her brother. Defendant had agreed that K.H. could come that morning to move her belongings while he was at a class. K.H. had arranged for defendant’s son (her stepson) J.O., her nephew A.G., and her brother R.H. to help with the move. Defendant had agreed to stay away while they were at the house. Defendant came home, however, and a dispute arose, which ended in violence, property damage, and a standoff with sheriff’s deputies. In August 2021, defendant was charged with three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, three counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, vandalism upon a vehicle, and felony resisting an officer. He pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. Following the presentation of evidence, the People moved to dismiss the charges of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury for lack of evidence; the trial court granted the motion. The jury subsequently found defendant guilty of a single count of assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism upon a vehicle, and felony resisting an officer. The remaining charges were dismissed after the jury failed to reach unanimous verdicts on each of them. On December 30, 2021, before sentencing, defendant submitted to the trial court a statement of mitigation. Included in that statement was a discussion of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731) (Senate Bill 567) and its amendments to Penal Code section 1170.1 Defendant explained the amendments eliminated the midterm as the presumptive term and said that “unless the court finds that the aggravating