People v. Dixon CA5

Filed 10/2/23 P. v. Dixon CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F084822 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF63790) v.

MICHAEL FRITZ DIXON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Kevin M. Seibert, Judge. Jonathan Roberts, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Jesica Y. Gonzalez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Michael Fritz Dixon contends on appeal that his sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing because the trial court did not act with informed discretion when it denied probation. The People agree. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On July 10, 2020, the Tuolumne County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)1; count 1). Defendant was charged in the alternative with five counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14 years of age, occurring between November 4, 2012, and September 30, 2014 (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 2–6). Prior to trial, the prosecution learned that the incidents charged in counts 4 and 5 related to the same incident and count 5 was subsequently dismissed. On February 16, 2022, the jury found defendant guilty on count 1. On August 5, 2022, the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to a mitigated term of six years (the lower term) in state prison. On August 18, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal. FACTS Jane Doe was born in November 2002 to Frank G.2 and T.T. They also had a son. Frank G. and T.T. separated in approximately 2008 when Jane Doe was six years old, and Jane Doe and her brother subsequently split time between Frank G. and T.T.’s homes. T.T. began dating defendant in 2009, when Jane Doe was eight years old. T.T. and defendant had a daughter and they eventually married and started living together in