People v. Stockman CA1/3

Filed 4/11/23 P. v. Stockman CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A164669 v. JESSE ARTHUR STOCKMAN, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 21CR001775) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Jesse Arthur Stockman was charged with various offenses in a six- count information arising from a violent altercation with his ex-girlfriend, Jane Doe, during which he broke her nose. He pled no contest to a single count of corporal injury to a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). In exchange for his plea, he was promised a five-year maximum prison sentence, and he indicated in his plea form that he understood he was pleading to a violent felony. The trial court accepted the plea and, on motion of the district

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1, reciting only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised. All undesignated statutory references appearing within are to the Penal Code.

1

attorney, dismissed all of the remaining counts with a Harvey waiver.2 The defendant also entered an Arbuckle waiver,3 such that another judge could sentence him at a later date. At a sentencing hearing, defense counsel asked the trial court to grant probation, arguing the evidence showed that Jane Doe was the initial aggressor and that defendant reacted with excessive force. The court continued the hearing so it could consider the preliminary hearing transcript, and the court also allowed the parties to file additional briefing, in part, about whether to strike the great bodily injury enhancement or the punishment for that enhancement. At the continued sentencing hearing on November 22, 2021, the prosecutor noted that the enactment of Senate Bill No. 567 (Senate Bill 567)—which would take effect at the beginning of the new year—would generally require imposition of the middle term unless the defendant stipulated to aggravating circumstances, or a jury or the court found such circumstances true beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor stated that if the court were inclined to strike punishment on the great bodily injury enhancement, then she would ask the court to impose the upper term of four years for the section 273.5 count. The prosecutor pressed for defendant’s stipulation to aggravating circumstances out of concern that, absent such a stipulation, an upper term sentence would be reversed due to Senate Bill 567. The trial court indicated that if defendant would stipulate to aggravating factors, it would consider imposing the upper term of four years for the section 273.5 count and striking the punishment for the great bodily injury enhancement, rather than sentencing him to five years. Defense