People v. Stanhope CA4/1

Filed 12/29/23 P. v. Stanhope CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082415

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS283236) PAUL MICHAEL STANHOPE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marcella O. McLaughlin, Judge. Affirmed. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2016, Paul Michael Stanhope entered into a plea agreement. Under the terms of that agreement, Stanhope pleaded guilty to three counts

of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a)) and three counts of committing a lewd act upon a child aged 14 or

1 All undesignated statutory references herein are to the Penal Code.

15 while being at least 10 years older than the child (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)). Stanhope admitted a substantial sexual conduct enhancement for the three counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14. (See § 1203.066(a)(8).) Pursuant to Stanhope’s plea bargain, the trial court sentenced him to a cumulative prison term of 14 years, which included the upper term for the first count of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 and one-third of the middle term for the remaining counts. In April 2023, Stanhope filed a petition for resentencing based on the enactment of Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 5.3), both of which amended the determinate sentencing scheme in section 1170. Senate Bill No. 567 made the middle term the presumptive maximum unless “there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(1)–(2); People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1038 (Flores).) Assembly Bill No. 124 requires imposition of the lower term if certain circumstances (e.g., “psychological, physical, or childhood trauma”) contributed to the commission of the offense “unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6); People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1095 (Gerson).) Stanhope contended Senate Bill No. 567 and Assembly Bill No. 124 apply retroactively to reduce his sentence. The trial court disagreed, finding that the amendments to section 1170 only applied to defendants whose