People v. Schanuth CA3

Filed 1/23/23 P. v. Schanuth CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C095754

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF2100211)

ARNOLD WAYNE SCHANUTH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Arnold Wayne Schanuth pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon, and admitted allegations that the crime resulted in great bodily injury and that he had a prior strike conviction. Defendant also admitted that he had been on postrelease community supervision (PRCS) at the time of the crime and had violated the terms of that supervision. As part of the negotiated plea, defendant entered into a Cruz1 waiver. The trial court subsequently found that defendant violated the Cruz waiver and imposed an aggregate upper term sentence of 11 years in prison.

1 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.

1

Defendant now contends his sentence should be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing in light of the passage of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567), which altered the methodology for selecting an appropriate triad term. (§ 1170, subd. (b); Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) Defendant also claims substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s determination that he violated his Cruz waiver. The People agree with defendant’s first contention, but disagree with the second. Finding merit in the first contention, we will affirm the convictions, vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing. BACKGROUND The People’s April 2021 information charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))2 with special allegations that the crime resulted in great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.2, subd. (b)). On June 16, 2021, defendant pleaded no contest and admitted the enhancement allegations. He also admitted he had been on PRCS at the time of the crime and had violated that supervision. As part of the negotiated plea, defendant entered into a Cruz waiver agreement wherein he would be released pending sentencing under certain terms and conditions, including that he obey all laws. If defendant successfully complied with the Cruz waiver, the trial court would dismiss his prior strike allegation, and defendant would be sentenced to probation. If not, defendant would receive a prison sentence of up to 11 years. On November 1, 2021, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, ultimately concluding that defendant violated the Cruz waiver by committing violations of section 240 [assault] and section 243, subdivision (e)(1) [battery]. Thereafter, on December 27, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of