People v. Roberts CA1/1

Filed 3/14/24 P. v. Roberts CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168270

v. (Mendocino County WILLIAM CECIL ROBERTS, JR., Super. Ct. No. 23CR00144) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 A jury convicted defendant William Cecil Roberts, Jr., of transporting fentanyl for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)).2 Defendant waived a jury trial on aggravating sentencing factors and admitted three of the six factors alleged in the information: his offense involved a large quantity of contraband (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(10)); he served a prior state

This appeal is appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion in 1

accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. We note the verdict form contains a clerical error and incorrectly 2

refers to Penal Code section 11352 rather than Health and Safety Code section 11352. The court shall correct this reference on remand. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186–187 [on its own motion, appellate court may order clerical errors corrected]; People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 369–370 [trial court properly modified verdict form to correctly reflect elements of relevant sentence enhancement].)

1

prison term (id., rule 4.421(b)(3)); and he was on probation at the time of the offense (id., rule 4.421(b)(4)). The People moved to strike the remaining aggravating factors—defendant had engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society; his prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness; and his prior performance on probation/supervision/parole was unsatisfactory—and the trial court granted the motion. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the probation department filed a presentence investigation report recommending the trial court deny probation and sentence defendant to the aggravated term of five years.3 The department relied on six factors in aggravation and one in mitigation4 and noted defendant “is facing sentencing on his seventh felony conviction and now has 12 criminal convictions overall. Moreover, the defendant has been granted summary and/or formal probation on multiple occasions (at least three total); and performed poorly. He has violated his probation at least twice, some resulting in new criminal convictions; and was on parole . . . during the instant offense. He has also failed to appear in court on multiple occasions. [Defendant] has served five prior state prison sentences (Missouri); and has violated his parole multiple times, as well.”5