People v. Lai CA3

Filed 12/28/23 P. v. Lai CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096993

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2019-0016316) v.

ADRIAN LAI,

Defendant and Appellant.

On November 9, 2021, this court upheld defendant Adrian Lai’s conviction for three counts of felony stalking and denied defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s order requiring him to register as a sex offender for life because the statutory scheme tiering the required length of sex offender registration had not yet taken effect. (People v. Lai (Nov. 9, 2021, C091679) [nonpub. opn.] (Lai I).) Rather, we concluded the Department

1

of Justice (DOJ) would place defendant in an appropriate tiered category pursuant to Penal Code section 290, subdivision (d)(5) after the law went into effect.1 Defendant petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, and on January 19, 2022, the matter was transferred back to us with directions to vacate the prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731) (Senate Bill No. 567). We did so and issued a new opinion affirming our original analysis concerning defendant’s convictions and sex offender registration. However, we remanded the matter for resentencing in light of the changes Senate Bill No. 567 made to the trial court’s authority to select an appropriate triad term. (People v. Lai (April 7, 2022, C091679) [nonpub. opn.] (Lai II).) Defendant appeals the judgment entered on remand. However, rather than challenge the trial court’s reimposition of an upper term sentence, he brings a multifaceted challenge to the trial court’s failure to revisit the requirement that he register as a sex offender, including how long such registration should continue. For the reasons we shall explain, we affirm.

BACKGROUND We need not recount the facts underlying defendant’s convictions for stalking, as they are described in detail in this court’s opinion in Lai II, supra, C091679, and are unnecessary to the disposition of this appeal. It is enough to note defendant stalked three women unknown to him by repeatedly approaching them despite their requests to be left alone, inquiring whether they were single, sometimes asking them out, sometimes following them in his car, and staring, which caused each woman distress and fear. Following defendant’s original appeal, this court’s remittitur directed the trial court to “resentence defendant under . . . section 1170 as amended by Senate Bill