People v. Hatfield CA3

Filed 6/12/24 P. v. Hatfield CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098586

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF22-01716)

v.

RICHARD HAROLD HATFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Richard Harold Hatfield pled no contest to one count of sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)).1 The trial court imposed the upper term of four years. On appeal, Hatfield contends that the trial court erred in imposing the upper term because there was no jury or court trial, stipulation to any aggravating circumstances, or certified record of conviction. Anticipating we might find this claim forfeited by counsel’s failure to object, he also argues counsel was ineffective. We conclude that Hatfield forfeited his

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

claims on appeal and has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. We will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In March 2023, Hatfield pled no contest to one count of sexual battery. He stipulated to the following factual basis: “[O]n or about August 10th of 2022, the defendant met the victim . . . at the Motel 6 in Yuba County. On that date in the morning time, the defendant did approach [the victim] . . . and jumped on top of [her], taking her pants off, and touched her in an intimate area, her vagina, which was against her will.” A probation report listed 10 prior felony convictions that occurred between 2001 and 2021 and five prior prison terms. The probation report also identified several aggravating circumstances, which included: (1) defendant’s prior convictions as an adult are numerous (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)); and (2) defendant served prior prison terms (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3)). The trial court read and considered the probation report prior to sentencing. At sentencing in May 2023, the trial court restated Hatfield’s criminal history per the probation report. Hatfield responded that he only had two prison terms. When the trial court listed each of Hatfield’s prior felony convictions and prison terms, Hatfield apologized and said he was wrong. Both Hatfield and defense counsel agreed that the trial court’s recitation of Hatfield’s criminal history per the probation report was correct. “[D]espite [Hatfield’s] lengthy criminal history,” defense counsel argued for the lower term because Hatfield: suffered from mental illness that diminished his mental capacity; was under the influence of controlled substances at the time of the current offense; and resolved the matter early in the proceedings. Based in part on Hatfield’s “very long