People v. Greer CA3

Filed 12/23/22 P. v. Greer CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C095150

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CF06247)

v.

ROGER EVERS GREER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Roger Evers Greer pled guilty to one count of resisting an executive officer in the performance of the officer’s duties. He also admitted having one prior strike conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. Based on the plea and admission, the trial court found defendant guilty of this offense, found the prior strike allegation to be true, and ultimately sentenced defendant to serve six years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3) applies retroactively to his case and requires remand for a new sentencing hearing. The People concede the point. We accept the concession. We

1

shall therefore vacate the sentence and remand the matter for the trial court to resentence defendant. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The nature of the contention raised on appeal does not require a detailed recitation of the underlying facts. It will suffice to note that defendant, while intoxicated, caused a disturbance at a Lake Oroville marina, drove recklessly out of the parking lot, and refused to pull over when a responding officer attempted to perform a traffic stop on Highway 162. Then, while speeding, defendant drove directly at another patrol car that was parked along the highway, stopping directly in front of the car and yelling “Fuck you” at the officer seated in the vehicle. After resuming the car chase, defendant came to another abrupt stop, exited his car on foot, and challenged the officers to shoot him. Defendant was eventually taken into custody after running across the highway, jumping over a guardrail, and attempting to punch one of the officers. Based on these facts, defendant pled guilty to one count of resisting an executive officer in the performance of the officer’s duties and admitted having a prior strike conviction. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the upper term sentence of three years, doubled due to the prior strike. In imposing this sentence, the trial court stated: “I’ve reviewed the circumstances in aggravation and mitigation set forth in the [California] Rules of Court. After careful consideration, I do find on balance that the circumstances in aggravation outweigh the circumstances in mitigation. In aggravation, the crime involved the threat of great bodily harm, and [defendant] engaged in conduct that indicates a serious danger to society. He was also on probation at the time that he picked up the new offense. In mitigation, he pled at an early stage and he has largely led a crime-free life.” DISCUSSION Defendant and the People agree that Senate Bill No. 567 applies retroactively to this case and requires remand for resentencing. We concur.