People v. Segrest CA3

Filed 7/12/23 P. v. Segrest CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096482

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 20F2070, 21F0072, 17F01393) v.

AARON ARTHUR SEGREST,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Aaron Arthur Segrest pleaded no contest to multiple charges, including assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2),1 pursuant to an agreement between defendant and the trial court to which the prosecution objected. Defendant also admitted violating his probation. The court deferred sentencing and released defendant to a rehabilitation program. When defendant failed to complete the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

program, the court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 11 years four months in prison, which included the upper term of four years on the assault charge. On appeal, defendant seeks remand for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 567). We agree that remand is required. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The substantive facts underlying defendant’s conviction are not relevant to our resolution of this appeal; thus, we need not present them in any detail. It suffices to say that in June 2021, defendant resolved two cases by agreement with the trial court over the objection of the prosecutor. In case No. 21F0072, defendant pleaded no contest to corporal injury to a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), assault with a deadly weapon as a serious felony, and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); count 3) for incidents that occurred in January 2020. As to counts 1 and 2, defendant admitted a prior strike. In case No. 17F1393, he admitted violating his probation in a felony child abuse case. The trial court and defendant agreed orally on the record to the following terms as recited by the court: defendant would plead no contest to all charges and enhancements (i.e., “to the sheet”), and the court would release defendant to a rehabilitation program. If defendant followed all program rules, successfully completed the program, tested clean, and did not leave the program without consent, the court would strike the prior strike and sentence him to probation. If he did not complete the program, the court admonished him that he would be “back here for sentencing and you will be getting 12 years in state prison which you will serve at 80 percent.” The only count for which any sentencing term was specifically discussed was “six years” as “the aggravated term on child endangerment,” which was briefly mentioned by