People v. Phillips CA3

Filed 12/13/23 P. v. Phillips CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098418

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE017907)

v.

ROBERTO ARMANDO PHILLIPS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Roberto Armando Phillips asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has filed a supplemental brief raising various issues. We will affirm the judgment and order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the correct fines and fees imposed.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The prosecution charged defendant with two counts of indecent exposure. (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1);1 People v. Phillips (Sept. 27, 2022, C095226) [nonpub. opn.] (Phillips).) The prosecution also alleged defendant had previously been convicted of indecent exposure. A jury found defendant guilty of one count of indecent exposure. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years in state prison. (Phillips, supra, C095226.) Defendant appealed, raising issues related to the Legislature’s then-recent amendments to section 1170 under Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). In the direct appeal opinion, this court summarized the facts of the case, explaining defendant exposed himself to the victim as she was walking to her car from her office. (Phillips, supra, C095226.) We affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing in light of the statutory amendments, explaining, “there was evidence suggesting defendant had endured psychological, physical, or childhood trauma that could conceivably support a finding that the prior trauma played a role in the offense. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing so the trial court can resentence defendant in light of the recent amendments to section 1170. (See People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [‘when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing “a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate” ’].) On remand, defendant may also raise any arguments related to his inability to pay fines and fees.” (Phillips, supra, C095226.) The parties filed resentencing briefs. Defendant requested a reduction in the sentence, either in the form of a reduction to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b) or imposition of the mid or low term, and argued defendant’s conduct was clearly the result of his mental health issues and a previous head injury. The prosecution